Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearing"

See other formats


3 1223 03273 6465 


San Francisco Public Library 



8an Francisco, CA 94 . 

Not to be taken from the Library 


AO. S 





ROOM 113 


2:37 P.M. 

Oi Hi imcnitS DEPT. 

MAR 3 1995 




ROOM 113 

2:37 P.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 

3 1223 03273 6465 












8 STAFF PR : ? 

9 CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

11 RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

12 NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 


1 4 BRENDA PREMO, Director 
Department of Rehabilitation 

i -'• 

KATHLEEN K. BARRETT, Legislative Advocate 
16 California Association of Persons with Handicaps, Inc. 


SHARON GOLD, President 
18 National Federation of the Blind of California 

YSIDRO (CID) URENA, Capitol Representative 
California Council of the Blind 



ROCKY A. BURKS, President 

2 1 California Foundation for Independent Living Centers 

22 ALICE McGILL, Speaking on behalf of 

23 NORCAL Center for Deafness in Sacramento 

24 PATRICK CONNELLY, former Vice Chair 
Democratic Party Disability Caucus 



MIKE HUMPHREY, Executive Director 

Community Resources for Independence, Santa Rosa 

27 GRACE M. VAZQUEZ, Employee 

Department of Rehabilitation 

4 49383 SFPL: ECONO JR< 
75 SFPL 06/06/03 17 






























APPEARANCES (Continued^ 

State Air Resources Board 

State Air Resources Board 

DOUG E. VAGIM, Member 
State Air Resources Board 

County of Fresno 



Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 


Department of Rehabilitation 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Impact of Budget Proposal on Department 8 

Possibility of Federal Block Grants 8 

Improvements Needed 9 

Governor's Proposed 8-10 Percent Cut 

in SSI/SSP 11 

Witnesses in Support: 

KATHLEEN BARRETT, Legislative Advocate 

California Association of Persons with Handicaps ... 13 

SHARON GOLD, President 

National Federation of the Blind of California .... 13 


California Council of the Blind 14 

ROCKY BURKS, President 

California Foundation for Independent Living Centers . 17 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Need to Include Basic Living Support in 

Advocacy for Client Group 18 

ALICE McGILL, Speaking on Behalf of 


NORCAL Center on Deafness, Sacrameneto 19 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Departments Not Complying with 

ADA Requirements ..... 19 

PATRICK CONNALLY, Former Vice Chair 

Democratic Party Disability Caucus 20 

INDEX (Continued) 

MIKE HUMPHREY, Executive Director 

Community Resources for Independence, Santa Rosa 

Chair, State Independent Living Council 22 

Witness in Opposition; 


Department of Rehabilitation 24 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Location of Current Employment 27 

Nature of Current Legal Action against 

Department 29 

Bureaucratic Tiers 30 

Response by MS. PREMO 31 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Nature of Complaints 33 

Inability of Director of Investigate 

Alleged Violations 33 

Continuation of Testimony by MS . VASQUEZ 34 

Response by MS. PREMO 35 

Question by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Actions Taken in Previous Complaints 36 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Intent to Hold Confirmation under Submission 

for One Week 37 

Response by MS. PREMO 37 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Mission of Department of Rehabilitation 38 

Abdication of Responsibility to Clients 38 

Closing Remarks by MS. PREMO 39 


INDEX (Continued) 


State Air Resources Board 39 

Background and Experience 40 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Toughest Issues during Tenure on Board 42 

Circumstances Where Board Needs to Slow 

Down Regulatory Timetable 43 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

How Would Mayor Riordan ' s Proposal Improve 

Pollution Problems in Los Angeles 44 

Position on the Mayor's Proposal 44 

Familiarity with Farm Bureau's Study of 

Damage to Crops from Ozone 45 

State Implementation Plan 46 

CARB's Approval of Local District Plans 47 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Fragmentation of Regulatory Agencies 47 

Date of Adoption of State Implementation Plan . . 48 

Impression of State Implementation Plan 49 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Possible Weaknesses or Defects in SIP 49 

How to Pay for Retiring 75,000 High 

Polluting Vehicles 50 

Status of Dispute relating to Renewable 

Resources and State Fuel Policies 51 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Pending Lawsuit against Federal EPA filed 

by Oil Refiners , 53 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Appropriateness of Fuel Neutrality Policy .... 54 


INDEX (Continued) 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Will SIP Meet Federal Compliance Standards 

for Clean Air 55 

Inclusion of Electric Vehicles in SIP 56 

Active Opposition to Electric Vehicle 

Mandate 57 

Need for ARB to Work with Department of 

Pesticide Regulation to Control Volatile 

Organic Coumpounds 58 

Strength of State Implementation Plan 59 

Problem of Most Hazardous Air Pollution 

Areas in Low Income and Minority Residential 

Districts 60 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Characterization of Air Quality in South 

Coast Basin in Last Ten Years 62 

Cause of Diminution of Smog Problem in 

South Coast Basin 62 

Motion to Confirm 63 

Committee Action 64 


State Air Resources Board 64 

Opening Statement 64 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Partnership with GEORGE SOARES 65 

Possibility of Conflict of Interest 66 

Need for Tough Statutes to Regulate 

Pesticides . 67 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Position on Mayor Riordan ' s Proposal 69 

ARB ' s Action on Ozone Damage to Crops 69 


Motion to Confirm 71 

Committee Action 71 


1 INDEX (Continued; 

2 Responsibility for Controlling Automobile 
Emissions 70 




DOUG E. VAGIM, Member 

6 State Air Resources Board 72 

7 Background and Experience 72 

8 Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

9 ARB Not Carrying out Mandate to Reduce 
Pollution in Each District by 5 Percent 75 





Impact of Removal of Older Cars on Air 

Pollution in Stae 82 

Elimination of 75,000 in SIP 77 

Technological Answers 78 

Recalling and Buying Old Cars 79 

15 Federal Approval of California's SIP 83 

16 Some People Prefer Federal Plan 84 

17 Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Success of Unical Oil Scrap Program in 

South Coast District 85 

Mandatory Ride Sharing Program, Reg. 15 86 

Programs that Work Versus Mandates 88 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 




Principle Defects in FIP that Were Corrected 

23 in SIP 

24 Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Used of No Drive Days to Boost Use of 

Public Transit 90 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Port Impacts with SIP Mandates 92 


INDEX (Continued^ 

Witness in Support; 


County of Fresno 93 

Motion to Confirm 93 

Committee Action 94 

Termination of Proceedings 94 

Certificate of Reporter 95 



1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 — ooOoo — 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think probably it would 

4 accommodate the most people present if we were to take up Item 

5 Number Three, the Director of the Department of Rehabilitation. 
So, let's start with that. 

7 Brenda Premo, if you'll take the chair. Good 

8 afternoon. 

9 MS. PREMO: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you want to begin with any 

kind of prepared statement? 

12 MS. PREMO: I'd like to, 

13 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, please. 

MS. PREMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

15 the Rules Committee. 

16 I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. 

17 am very honored to have been chosen by Governor Wilson to 

18 succeed my friend and colleague, Bill Tainer. 

19 In the next few minutes, I'd like to tell you why I'm 

20 J qualified to be Director of California's Department of 

21 I Rehabilitation. 

22 I have a diverse background which prepares me well 

23 for this position. I come to the directorship with the unique 
experience of being a consumer of, a contractor with, and ah 
administrator in the Department of Rehabilitation. I have the 
technical knowledge, creativity, and administrative experience 
necessary to run an organization of this size and scope. 

But more importantly, I have the personal sensitivity 


and deep-rooted commitment to the consumers of the Department ' s 
programs and services . 

I'm a person with disability, and as you can see, I'm 
a person with Albinism, and I have a visual impairment. In 
fact, you could read this speech from where I'm sitting. 

I was a consumer of the Department of Rehabilitation 
services. I received counseling and guidance and assistance in 
obtaining my Bachelor's degree from California State University 
at Long Beach. 

I know the value of a good vocational rehabilitation 
counselor. I know the difference technology and education can 
play in the lives of those of us with disabilities. 

I know what it's like to be told you can't do it . I 
know the frustration and anger, and I know that you can go ahead 
and do it, if for no other reason than to prove them wrong. 

I am a former contractor and service provider with 
the Department of Rehab. I ran a community-based not for profit 
organization which provided independent living services to 
people with disabilities in Orange County. 

For 14 years, I was the Director of one of the 
state's largest independent living centers, known as the Dayle 
Mcintosh Center for the Disabled. I know what it's like to run 
a broad array of community services on a shoe-string budget. I 
know what it's like to scrimp and save to keep a small, growing 
nonprofit alive. I know what it's like to voluntarily hold your 
own check so your staff can be paid. I have managed both sides 
of the balance sheet. 

We built Dayle Mcintosh from its inception to more 

1 than a $1.2 million center before I left. While administering 
the nonprofit agency, I earned my Master's in Business 

3 Administration from Pepperdine University, and I have served 

4 three and one-half years as a top level administrator with the 

5 Department of Rehabilitation, nearly a year of that as Director. 

6 During that time, I have learned what we in the 
community used to call "the state way. " I know contracting 

8 j rules and regulations. I have learned the state's civil service 

9 system, and I've learned the joys of working with our control 

10 agencies. 

11 As you can tell — 

12 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Which is your favorite one? 

13 [Laughter. ] 

14 MS. PREMO: I think I'll take the Fifth. 

15 As you can tell, I come to this position with a solid 

16 ;j understanding of the programs and services of the Department of 

17 | Rehabilitation. As a disabled community leader, I arrived with 

18 an extensive and supportive network of consumers, service 

19 | providers, and rehabilitation professionals. 

20 From policy to legislation, from program development 

21 to service delivery, I've been there and done that. 

22 To me, what overrides all of these qualifications, 

23 l however, is that I bring to the Department a deep philosophical 

24 commitment to our consumers, as well as the principles of 

25 independent living. 

26 I have been an advocate for people with disabilities 
for as long as I can remember. I don't intend to stop just 
because I've joined the bureaucracy. 




1 I served on the National Council on Disability as an 

2 appointee of President Reagan. While on the National Council, I 

3 assisted in the development draft legislation which became the 

4 Americans with Disabilities Act. 

5 I see the Department of Rehabilitation as a critical 

6 link between Californians with disabilities and state 
government. The Department of Rehabilitation is a major 

8 resource to assist in seeing the promises of the ADA come true. 

9 The mission of the Department of Rehabilitation is to 
assist Californians with disabilities, particularly those with 

11 the most severe disabilities, in obtaining and retaining 

12 meaningful employment and independent living in their local 

13 communities. I believe it is my responsibility as Director to 

14 ensure the disability policy in California reflects these 

15 ! values. 

16 The National Organization on Disability, in 

17 « conjunction with Lou Harris and Associates, recently issued the 

18 ; results of the most comprehensive survey of Californians with 

19 j disabilities. I would like to share with you just a few of the 

20 most significant findings. They help to highlight the 

21 importance of what we at the Department intend to do in the next 

22 four years . 

23 Now, as I give you these statistics, keep in mind, 

24 | one in five of us has a disability. There are 49 million people 

25 with disabilities in this country. There are some 5.2 million 
Californians with disabilities. Any one of us can join the 
disabled community at any time. We're not just talking about 
strangers; we're talking about brothers and sisters, spouses, 






1 friends, even Senators and Assemblymembers . And as the 

2 population ages, our numbers will increase. 

3 According to the Harris survey, there is continuing, 

4 and in my view, a disgraceful disparity in the employment rate 

5 of those with and without disabilities. Two-thirds of working 

6 age people with disabilities are not in the workforce. 

7 I Unfortunately, in California approximately 70 percent of those 

8 j with disabilities are not in the workforce. Of those who are 

9 working, only two-thirds have full-time work. 

Seventy-five percent of unemployed people with 

disabilities of working age say they want to work. As a direct 
result of their lack of employment, the poverty rate among 

13 people with disabilities is twice, double, that of the national 

14 average 

Forty percent of adults with disabilities live in 

16 households with earnings of $15,000 or less. This is compared 
to 18 percent of adults without disabilities. Just 10 percent 
of people with disabilities, as opposed to 22 percent of those 

19 without disabilities have household incomes of 50,000 or more. 

20 One in four adults with disabilities derive all — 
now, that's all — of their income from benefit programs like 

22 SSI, SSDI, and other insurance programs. And people with 

23 disabilities have less education; 25 percent of people with 

24 disabilities do not have a high school diploma 

Now, I draw your attention to this survey because it 

underscores the importance of the work we will do at the 




27 Department of Rehabilitation. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was that number 25 percent? 

1 MS. PREMO: Twenty- five percent, one- fourth. 

2 : Since joining the Department in 1991, I have helped 

3 shape the vision of an organization which focuses on increasing 

4 employment opportunities and economic self-sufficiency of our 

5 consumers so they can lead independent, productive, tax paying 

6 lives. Through these efforts, it is my hope that we make 

7 strides towards closing that unemployment gap. 

8 In 1992, Congress substantially rewrote the federal 

9 law which governs the programs and services of the Department of 

10 ! Rehabilitation. The 1992 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act 

11 have triggered significant changes in how the Department serves 

12 its constituencies. We have new themes of consumer empowerment, 

13 i consumer choice and direction, and career development. 

14 Successful implementation of the new law is the highest in my 

15 | priorities . 

16 The Department of Rehabilitation has three programs. 

17 i The first program is the Vocational Rehabilitation Program, the 

18 f one that you hear the most about. We estimate that about 

19 ! approximately 105,000 consumers will receive vocational 

20 ; rehabilitation services in this fiscal year. 

21 The second major program in the Department is the 

22 j Habilitation Services Program. We expect to serve nearly 15,000 
individuals with developmental disabilities in this program. 

And the third and much smaller program is the 
Independent Living Program. Approximately 28,000 individuals 
are expected to be served by the 28 independent living centers 
this year. 

I am acutely aware of the opportunities and 



1 challenges facing the Department of Rehabilitation and its 

2 consumers in the next four years. I'm committed to providing 

3 quality services to our constituencies. 

4 As I mentioned earlier, I helped draft the first 

5 version of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA 

6 establishes a comprehensive national disability policy which 

7 promotes economic and social self-sufficiency, independence and 

8 ! self-determination, and inclusion and integration of people with 

9 disabilities into all aspects of daily life. Both the Governor 

10 ! and I want to make full and proper implementation of the ADA in 

11 this state a priority. 

12 The Department of Rehabilitation is in a perfect 

13 I position to assist business and government in understanding the 

14 : ADA and how we can make it work for all of us. 

15 In conclusion, let me point out that the 1994 survey 

16 also shows that people with disabilities in general are 

17 s optimistic about the future. More than half of work-aged 

18 ' Americans with disabilities say they believe that their quality 

19 of life will improve over the next four years. They expect job 

20 opportunities, education, and access to community institutions 

21 and activities to improve. I don't intend to let them down. 

22 I expect to have the Department play a significant 

23 | role in helping to achieve these goals. As Director of the 

24 Department of Rehab, I intend to work with you, other policy 

25 | makers, employers and the public to understand, we have to look 
at the abilities of people with disabilities. We must welcome 
people with disabilities into the mainstream of community life, 
and we must invest in the accommodations and technological 





1 changes needed to assure full participation of all of us in the 

2 economic infrastructure of society. 

3 I believe in an independent living philosophy in 

4 ! which we choose to reach our fullest potential so that we, too, 

5 can live the American dream. And to me, those choices should be 
based on all aspects of who we are, not just our disabilities. 

7 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would be open to any 

8 questions that the Committee might have for me. 

9 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. A nice 
10 statement . 

How does the budget proposal impact the Department in 
12 its services? 

MS. PREMO: This budget year, we have remained 
essentially the same. We have a commitment from the budget that 
15 is essentially the same as it was last year. 

As you probably know, the Department receives 
substantially federal funding for our Title I program, which is 
18 the vocational rehab program. For every $3.7 dollars we receive 
— or for every one dollar we get in state dollars, we get 3.7 
in federal up to a cap. So, it is good business logic to keep 

21 our agency funded because of the leverage of the dollars . 

22 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are you watching the federal 

23 discussion of possibly block granting funding sources, I think 
of this sort. What you heard about that? 

MS. PREMO: Yes, we are watching it. We're watching 
it on the general vocational side as well as the implications it 



could have to the Department. 


So far, there hasn't been a specific proposal that we 

1 can respond to. 

2 We believe that all services that are provided to the 

3 general public should be accessible to those members of the 

4 general public who happen to be disabled. 

5 We also understand that we offer a service, not only 

6 to the disabled person, but to the employer, to the state 

j agency, to the public agency, that assists them to understand 

8 and to get what they need to provide good services. So, we see 

9 the role of the Department changing as the environment changes , 

10 but many of the things we do are specialized and can assist both 

11 our consumers and our other partners in providing good quality 

12 service. 

13 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Assuming that the current services 

14 | aren't perfect, since no human activity is, what would you wish 

15 \ to improve if you can? 

16 MS. PREMO: That's a good question, and having been 

17 in the community, and then moving into contracting, and finally 

18 into the Department, those all look like walking through Alice 

19 in Wonderland 's mirror. When you walk through, it looks 

20 ; different, but it's the same thing. 

21 I think basically within the Department there are 

22 | three things that I want to work on specifically. The first is 

23 J helping our staff and providing them the training that they need 

24 in understanding the new amendments to the Rehab Act, 

25 understanding the importance of technology. 

Technology in this century is going to help all of 

us, irrespective of disability. But assisted technology is 
going to make it possible for people with disabilities to 




overcome impediments and do tasks that we would have thought 
impossible five years ago. Such as persons who are deaf using 
the relay service, closed captioning, the availability of 

My speech is a prime example of that. The print on 
this was designed by a computer, and there was nothing special 
about that computer. Just pushed a button, and there it was. 

That type of technology for our consumers will allow 
them to reach their goals in employment, and allow employers to 
hire them as the most qualified person, without considering the 
impediments or limitations they confront. 

The second thing I want to do is to increase the 
involvement of people with disabilities in the rehab process. 
Sometimes I read, and it's very close on my nose, the newspaper, 
And somethings that disturb me about what I read is even the 
newspaper writers, who are very careful and considerate of 
people with disabilities, want to generalize that because you 
have a disability, the only way you can become productive is 
somehow to become undisabled. 

What we want to do, and that somehow you can't — 
that your intellect is in your hands, or your legs, or your 
ears , or your eyes . 

What we want to do is get across the idea that your 
ability to perform is based on the total assets and liabilities 
that you have, like every other person. And that with certain 
accommodation, you will be able to perform those duties or that 
job. As part of that, you need to be involved as a partner, an 
equal partner, in developing your rehabilitation plan. 


1 And third, for me for the Department, I want to be 

2 able to reach out to service those populations in rural areas 

3 and the inner city, where we have unserved and underserved 

4 populations . And I want to be able to recruit from those areas 

5 so that we can use people from the community to assist us in 

6 reaching out to the people we need to get to. 

7 j CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I notice in your comment that a 

8 j quarter of the effected community have their income maintained 

9 i solely through programs like SSI. 

10 Have you had an opportunity to comment on the 

11 proposed budget cut of 8 percent for an individual, and 10 

12 ! percent for a couple in SSl/SSP support? 

13 MS. PREMO: I haven't seen the actual proposal yet. 

14 I do have the big fat blue book on my desk, but I haven't gotten 

15 | through it all . 

16 I do have to say in general that when I was on — I 

17 was on SSI for three years, and my whole goal was to be off of 

18 it. At that time, there were many disincentives, because we 

19 assumed that people with disabilities would not work, and we 

20 built a system to discourage them from working. 

21 My hope is that we'll be able, and have been in the 

22 last six to seven years, eliminating many of those disincentives 

23 ! and rewarding people for wanting to work. And many people with 

24 | disabilities are very frustrated on an emotional level because 

25 I people discount them. 

26 I hope that our goal will be not so much to worry 

27 j about the dollars in the program, but how the program is 
designed to move people with rewards from a subsistence — even 



1 if you added that 10 percent back, it will be a subsistence 
program — to a situation where they are empowered to be 

3 employed. 

4 My goal, I believe, or my responsibility as Director, 

5 and we have a very good now working relationship with Social 

6 Security, is to move people from those roles into competitive 
employment, so they don't have to contend with all of the issues 

8 that goes with being on Social Security, and the money is just 

9 one of them. 

10 Having been on the system, it's de-humanizing. It 

11 controls you. It invades your personal life, and people assume, 

12 assume, you will be capable of doing nothing. 

13 Therefore, our goal is to get folks out of that, and 

14 i see myself as Director in that position, but I haven't looked 

15 at the specific as yet proposal. 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, the specific proposal is to 

17 i cut it 8 percent for an individual . And I would suggest that 

18 J it's a fundamental enough issue that a Director whose 

19 responsibilities include being an advocate for these populations 

20 have knowledge and an opinion about the matter before I'm ready 

21 : to vote. 

22 Maybe before February 9th, we'll be able to talk 

23 ; about that . 

24 Are there questions from other Members of the 

25 Committee? 

26 Who wants to comment in the audience? 

27 MS. BARRETT: My name is Kathleen Barrett. I'm the 

28 legislative advocate for the California Association of Persons 



1 with Handicaps. I believe you have a letter of our supporting 

2 Brenda ' s nomination. 

3 We feel Brenda is an excellent advocate for our 

4 people, and we would like to see her continue in the next four 

5 years to be able to put into full effect the initiative that she 

6 has undertaken. 

7 I appreciate the Chair's comments about the 

8 | supplemental security payment reduction, but feel that it would 

9 be very hard for the Director at this time to respond to another 
control agency. That's really difficult, but I'm sure she will 

11 in her own way, and she has a very, very forceful way. 

12 I thank you . 

13 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Kathleen. 

14 Next please, there's a mike in front of you. 

15 MS. GOLD: My name is Sharon Gold. I'm the President 

16 of the National Federation of the Blind of California. 

17 The National Federation of the Blind of California 

18 i: has been pleased to work with Brenda Premo over the past several 

19 | years that she ' s been within the Department . We have always 

20 found the Department somewhat less than helpful in the 

21 ; rehabilitation process of blind people. 

22 Probably of all the disabled people, blind people 

23 have the hardest time getting work and the hardest time getting 
rehabilitated. During this past time that Brenda has been in 
the Department, we are finding that the Department is becoming 
much more sensitive to the assistance of blind people, and that 
the rehabilitation process is getting easier for blind people. 
We appreciate that. 



1 We support the opportunity for blind people, and if 

2 Brenda ' s going to bring that to us, then we're for it. So, we 

3 would like to support her nomination. 

4 In such, the feeling that we have of it is that we, 

5 as an organization, gave her our highest award at our last 

6 convention in November, the Kenneth Gurnigan Award, and we do 
that for the performance that we have seen, but also for what we 

8 ' expect in the way of opportunities for blind people in 

9 California. 

10 Thank you. 

11 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

12 Yes, sir. 

13 MR. URENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Ysidro 

14 Urena from the California Council of the Blind, the largest 

15 | organization of its type in the country. 

16 We ' re happy to support Brenda because she has shown 

17 ; us already that she is willing to work with us, that she is 

18 [ willing to make progress. 

19 She has, for instance, very recently appointed a 

20 i blind individual to direct the Department — I'm sorry, the 

21 Business Enterprise Program. He is an individual who's been a 

22 vendor, and hopefully he will straighten that mess out that we 

23 i had for years. And we believe that he will, and we believe that 

24 ; he will work with us, and we will also support him in that 

25 | appointment she made . 

26 I think that what I'd like to say is that Director 

27 Premo is confronting a real problem.. The real problem is 
history. That history has been very bad, particularly for the 



1 blind, in the Department of Rehab. As a matter of fact, in 

1963, we opposed being sent to the Department of Rehabilitation. 

3 We've had many confrontations since that time. 

4 Those things seem to be gradually, at least in the 

5 last nine months or so, disappearing to some degree. But, you 

6 know, there are people who still think of the years, well, 20-30 
years ago, and they think of you as Legislators of 2 0-30 years 

8 ago. And so, they're unhappy with you, they're unhappy with 

9 Brenda, but that's only because they don't realize the 
advancements that have really been made. 

And I apologize for that, but I don't know what I can 
do and you can do about it except keeping improving our 
programs . 

The only thing that I would recommend to Brenda at 
this time, the ADA, it's a good program. The American Council 
of the Blind supported that program, not at the eleventh hour, 
but they supported it from the very beginning. 

In addition to that, let me say we supported it 
because we believe in helping disabilities. The California 
Council of the Blind, for instance, instigated the regulations 
which brought aid to the disabled back in the late '50s or early 
'60s. I don't recall; I was around, but I didn't know much 
23 about it at that time. 

- 4 Again, the thing that I would recommend to Brenda is 

because the ADA doesn't really deal with as much of the problems 
of the blind as it should, for example, in the area of 
paratransit. The first ones to be taken off paratransit when it 
comes to the necessity of money are blind people. And some of 




the worst people to get around because of their blindness, 
because they're newly blind, may need the most help, probably, 
than anyone else. 

There are people who are older who cannot walk five 
or six blocks to catch a bus, and who cannot be let off the bus 
to another five or six blocks to their destination because there 
are no buses in those places . 

So, I think if the Director is willing to work to 
alleviate these problems, is willing to work with us, as I said, 
she's already made an appointment which will have a good effect, 
I think, and if she continues to work with us and bring the 
blind program together under one division so that we can improve 
and have specialists working for blind people, the way other 
disabilities do, I think that we can improve what is now the 
employable blind. Seventy percent are not employed. I think we 
can improve on that, but I think we can only do it under the new 
Director's direction, if she was willing to help us, and I'm 
sure she is. And we're willing to do everything we can to put 
the blind program under the same roof so that the rehabilitation 
counselor, the counselor teachers, the business enterprise 
program, the readers' fund, is under one roof, under one 
direction, and in the Department of Rehab, with its own Deputy 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much, thank you 

Are there others that might wish to comment? The 
only thing I'd ask is to avoid being repetitive. 


MR. BURKS: Mr. Chairman, my name is Rocky Burks, and 
I am the President of the California Foundation for Independent 
Living Centers . 

And I would like to say that we most eagerly and 
enthusiastically support the recommendations from the Governor 
to appoint Brenda Premo as the Director. 

You bring up a very good point on the SSI 
consideration of the Department of Finance in cutting 8 percent 
across the board. I would hope that I think members of this 
distinguished committee would recognize that it is not 
necessarily the role of the Department of Rehabilitation to 
determine the cash benefit that exists under the SSI program. 

However, it is the role of the State Department of 
Social Services. I think that to confuse the role of the 
Department of Rehabilitation and their overview — I think what 
Brenda was saying was that she probably did not have an adequate 
opportunity to understand the magnitude of the Department of 
Social Services cuts that are being projected through the 
Governor's January proposal, but that she was concentrating 
pretty much on her efforts with the Department of 
Rehabilitation's functional role. 

That ' s why California Foundation for Independent 
Living Centers can support her, because she is a knowledgeable 
person in the respective areas of budget, on both sides of the 
budget aisle. And I think that it is the beef that we would 
have with the Department of Social Services and the Department 
of Finance and the Governor of the state who would recommend the 
draconian cut of 8 percent. 




1 I think Brenda has done an admirable job in the 

Department of Rehabilitation in rejuvenating the enthusiasm and 

3 the desire and the motivation of Department staff that I haven't 

4 seen existing in over 12 years. I think that that says 

5 something about the management skill and ability that Brenda 

6 presents to the staff of state employees. 

7 It is a joy, it is not a hindrance, to go into the 

8 Department and find people are having every desire to empower 

9 people with disabilities to become tax payers as opposed to tax 
users, to become contributors of the society as opposed to being 

11 the perception that they are users in society. 

12 It is for those reasons that we can look at Brenda 

13 and say eagerly that she can demonstrate the leadership and 

14 skill and ability that's necessary to transform this Department. 

15 Thank you. 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

1 7 I guess maybe I should restate my point, which is, 

18 part of our review involves an assessment of a person's ability 

19 to manage the large bureaucracy involved, and as has been just 

20 indicated, to lift and improve morale and purposefulness within 

21 the bureaucracy. 

22 I guess I'm a little worried that when one of the 

23 stated missions of the Department is advocacy for the client 

24 group, to not have either knowledge or opinion about an 8 or 10 

25 percent cut in their basic support strikes me as a gap in 
performance that is a serious one. So, we'll get back to that 


27 later. 


Let me continue to ask anyone that wishes to comment 



1 to do so. 

2 MS. McGILL: Hello. My name is Alice McGill. And 

3 I'm here on behalf of Sheri Farinha Mutti, who is the Director 

4 of NORCAL Center on Deafness here in Sacramento. 

5 And our Director has worked with Brenda Premo for 

6 over a year now, and in the past, and she has noticed 
improvement in providing services to deaf and hard of hearing 

8 people within the Department of Rehabilitation. 

9 Brenda Premo recognizes the importance of working 
with the community organizations and utilizing resources of the 

11 community organizations. And our Director has also noticed that 

12 Brenda ■ s commitment to having her Department ' s role in the 

13 I Americans with Disabilities Act in providing services . 

14 Unfortunately, another state department has not 

15 complied with ADA rules and regulations as employer and also as 

16 a service provider. 

17 We trust that under Brenda ' s leadership, her 

18 continued leadership, that this issue will be confronted, and we 

19 I expect that Brenda will continue to work with the community 

20 organizations to improve access for deaf and hard of hearing 

21 individuals, access to services and employment opportunities. 

22 Northern California Center on Deafness supports the 

23 1 selection of Brenda Premo for this position. 

24 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I wanted to ask, what was the 

25 department that you were concerned about their ADA compliance 
that had been inadequate? 

MS. McGILL: You want me to identify the department? 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, that's why I asked. 



MS. McGILL: Okay. We have worked with several deaf 
and hard of hearing individuals, mostly as employee of the state 
departments. It's individual cases, so I feel that I can't 
really express to you what the situation is because I have an 
attorney-client relationship with these people. 

But I can tell you that there are some departments 
that are very good. They are complying with the ADA, but others 
are not. Apparently there is not standardization in complying 
with the law. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What I'm trying to learn from you 
is which ones are doing a particularly good or particularly bad 
job, in your opinion? 

MS. McGILL: Okay, all right. 

The Department of Rehab, of course, is the model. 
That is the model state department . 

PERS — I can't remember what the full name of it is. 


MS. McGILL: Okay, they're very good also. 

The Department of Social Services, not good. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They have some work to do. 

MS. McGILL: Yes, definitely, and also the Department 
of Health Services has work to do. 

There are a few others. I can't remember them off 
the top of my head right now. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's a good start, thank you. 

Next gentleman. 

MR. CONNALLY: My name is Patrick Connally. I'm a 
former Vice Chair of the Democratic Party Disability Caucus, and 


I'm currently a member of the Sixth Assembly District Committee, 
and also Co-chair of Marin County Democrats with Disabilities 
and helped found several Democratic clubs. 

I'm here speaking for myself today, and I would say 
if we have to have a Republican as Director of the Department, I 
would definitely support this woman being Director. 

I would can the guy from Medi-Cal, and if you'd like 
some instances of ADA violations, I would be happy to give them 
to you, because I think it's a disgrace that oxygen and 
wheelchairs are the biggest things denied. 

I think it ' s important to have a strong Director 
that ' s going to support the Americans with Disabilities Act and 
the intent that it was found for, which is to get people to work 
and to end this horrible, expensive hole we're pouring money 
down, called the Charity Rehabilitation Model, and I think we 
have a chance to do that . And I think we ' re going to need 
bipartisan support to protect our civil rights protections and 
to be able to work. 

I could not work if it weren't for the Americans with 
Disabilities Act ensuring that public transportation was 
accessible. And I'm a taxpayer today, and thanks in part to the 
work of Brenda Premo and other people getting that law passed. 
It's a law that's everybody's law. It protects everybody, and I 
think that's going to be a crucial legislative issue. 

And I do agree with you that we do need that 8 
percent restored, because it's ridiculous to expect anybody to 
live on $600 a month. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 


Anyone else? 

I know there is opposition present. Perhaps it would 
be — oh, another gentleman. 

MR. HUMPHREY: Don't worry, Brenda. The opposition's 
not from me . 

My name is Mike Humphrey. I am the Executive 
Director of Community Resources for Independence, which is an 
independent living center in Santa Rosa. I'm also the Chair of 
the State Independent Living Council and work very closely with 
Brenda . 

What does Brenda bring to the Department, I think, is 
really important here. And I think what it is, is she brings an 
atmosphere of cooperation, respect, and dignity toward people 
with disabilities, values the input of people with disabilities. 

Under the former administration, Governor Deukmejian, 
I think that there was a very different atmosphere, one of 
trying to shut down the independent living centers as one 
example. Senator Ayala probably remembers the independent 
living centers out on the east steps of the Capitol, protesting. 
I actually remember Senator out and speaking before us and 
giving his support to the independent living centers at that 
time. And, you know, there were — at that time, there were 
some real threats for people with disabilities that were 

Since Brenda ' s come to the Department, there's been 
the atmosphere of wanting to work with the disability community, 
wanting to resolve the issues and matters that confront the 
disability community. And provided us a door to the 


1 administration, so to speak, one that allows us to more 

2 accurately reflect our concerns, and be able to present our 

3 issues and problems to the administration. 

4 She's been very aggressive in trying to get new 

5 federal dollars into the State of California. The State of 

6 California has a new assisted technology grant that was funded 

7 by the Rehabilitation Services Administration, and Brenda ' s been 

8 very active and has formed a council of — advisory council that 

9 advises her on issues around assisted technology for people with 

10 disabilities. 

11 She's been active about appointing the — or getting 

12 the Governor to appoint the Rehabilitation Advisory Council, the 

13 State Independent Living Council. All of these councils are now 

14 in operation and advising the Department on some real critical 

15 issues facing the Department. 

16 | it ' s too bad that some of these other departments are 

17 not set up in such a way, and hopefully, they'll use the 

18 Department as an example of how you can work with your 

19 communities to assist you in creating the kind of change that 

20 needs to occur. 

21 I think another thing that Brenda brings is, again, 

22 the commitment to the movement. Since she's been appointed last 

23 j year, I think, she's traveled up and down the state many, many 

24 times, visiting, I think, virtually all of the districts within 

25 | the Department of Rehabilitation, holding Town Hall meetings, 
really getting out there to the community and letting them tell 
her what it is that are their issues and concerns that will help 
shape the Department and make the Department a better place for 




people with disabilities. 

That's what it's becoming, is really a better place 
with disabilities. And I really encourage you to support her 

Just briefly in response to the SSI issue is that I 
think that Brenda is very concerned about an 8 percent proposal 
In my mind, I know Brenda — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Humphrey, she can speak for 
herself on the issue. 

MR. HUMPHREY: Okay, I'm sorry. 

Certainly, I think that we in the disability 
community will make sure that the Governor and the 
administration hear about our concerns around the 8 percent 
proposal, and we'll do everything we can to make sure that 
people with disabilities have an opportunity to have a minimal 
subsistence level to live on. 

I thank the Committee, and again, encourage your 
endorsement for the Governor * s nomination here . Thanks . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Is there opposition present? Please come up. 

MS. VASQUEZ: Mr. Chairman and Senators, I'm here as 
a private citizen and also as an employee of the Department of 
Rehabilitation . 

As you can see, I have — my voice kind of goes away 
since I've had surgery. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You should identify yourself. 

MS. VASQUEZ: My name is Grace Vasquez, and I am the 
training officer for the Americans with Disabilities Act 


Implementation Section. 

I am here in opposition of Ms. Premo ' s confirmation 
to Director of the Department of Rehabilitation. On her 
personal point, I don't have any rebuttals to her as a person. 

But in terms of her leadership, her commitment to 
consumers as she stated, her knowledge of the civil service 
system, her promises set forth in the ADA, her assistance in the 
drafting of the Americans with Disabilities Act are all areas in 
which she has not fulfilled her commitment to the consumers. 
And also, her leadership has been lacking in those areas. 

I've currently filed a federal suit against the 
Department of Rehabilitation for violation of the Federal 
Information Practices Act. The Department was notified not 
only prior to my lawsuit that my supervisor had made 15 copies 
of my medical records, and had plastered them all over the 
Department . 

Subsequent to that, the Department obtained copies of 
a lawsuit that I had won in 1985 against the Department of 
Employment Development . That lawsuit stated that the agreement 
was that all documents pursuant to that agreement would be 
expunged and destroyed. The Department of Rehabilitation 
obtained copies of that also and proceeded to destroy my career. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When did that occur? 

MS. VASQUEZ: June 10th of '94. 

In June 10th of '94, I was under tremendous stress. 
Prior to that, in February of '94, I was forced into submitting 
a request for transfer to another program because of the stress 
level and the fact that I have lupus . 


During that period, my supervisor tried to corrose 
[sic] me into signing a release of information, a blank release. 
I notified the proper authorities, and then I went to CSEA. I 
went in through the departmental process by contacting the labor 
relations officer, the EEO office, and the civil rights officer. 
And I was told that I basically was barking up the wrong tree. 

CSEA then informed my supervisor in writing that he 
was to stop corrosing [sic], you know, and retaliating me 
because I would not submit or agree to signing a blank release. 

On May of '94, the Deputy Director, Curtis Richard, 
informed me that he did not have substantial information, and 
there was a question as to whether or not I had lupus and a 
degenerative disk disease. He basically told me in his 
memorandum: get back to work. 

Four days later, I found copies of my medical records 
that I submitted to substantiate that I had lupus, and that the 
stress level was aggravating it, and that I needed to be 

A couple days later after that, I was attacked in my 
office by the secretary. I went to the labor relations officer 
and informed him that I had brought that to my supervisor ' s 
attention, and that my supervisor basically told me at 1:00 
o'clock on a Friday afternoon that he would take care of it on 
Monday, after everyone has cooled off. 

On the following week, I was extremely distressed 
that I had found my medical records in the recycle bin in the 
main Xerox room, there for everyone to inspect and review. 

I then went and tried to look for the civil rights 


officer, who was not present. I went to the labor relations 
officer, who would not even talk to me . I went to the personnel 
officer, and she basically told me that she represented 
management . 

I then went up to the legal office and was told that 
I needed to speak to the legal counsel . I met with the legal 
counsel and Mr. Curtis Richard. Mr. Curtis Richard informed me 
that he did not know anything about it, yet I had seen 
memorandums that he had sent to my supervisor. 

What I'm getting to is that as a Director, she's 
accountable and responsible for the actions of her staff. She 
has refused to acknowledge that there has been an enormous 
amount of inappropriate behavior. And as you know, the 
Americans with Disabilities Act says confidentiality of medical 
records is a federal offense. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Now, you're working where? 

MS. VASQUEZ: The Department of Rehabilitation, the 
Americans with Disabilities Act Implementation Section. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Where is that? 

MS. VASQUEZ: That is on the first floor of the 
Department of Rehab. 


MS. VASQUEZ: In Sacramento. 

I notified the U.S. Attorney General and the 
Department of Justice, and they have been — informed me of the 
process in which to file a suit, and I've done so. 

I'm here basically as a citizen, and my thing is that 
I don't believe that the taxpayers should continue to pay her 


salary and those of her primary chiefs of staff; mainly, Rich 
Bayquen, who I had talked to in the past; Curtis Richard, who is 
also appointed; and most preferably, Brenda Premo. 

I have suffered not only emotional and physical 
abuse, but I had suffered a more dramatic trauma, and that is 
that I may never heal from my injuries. 

In August of '94, what turned out to be just a 
herniated disk resulted in three ruptured disks in my neck. My 
doctor has stated that I may never heal from that . 

I think if the Director had taken basically control 
of her staff and investigated it, and had basically talked to 
me, my CSEA representative, and investigated all the allegations 
and all the documentations which we provided her, that I would 
have not endured these irreparable damages to my health and to 
my psyche. 

I have also learned that in November of '94, Curtis 
Richard has continued to basically disclose the confidentiality 
of his staff. He prepared a memorandum in which he tells a 
supervisor that there ' s nothing wrong with the ADA unit . That 
the problem, what's wrong with the ADA unit is a staff member, 
and goes down the list and basically says that they're all a 
bunch of crazy people, and he names them by name. And then he 
says that his supervisor is having marital problems and should 
not bring them to the department . 

I have learned since then that the five members of 
the seven-member staff have filed a complaint with the CSEA, and 
I can provide that memorandum which was given to my attorney. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You currently have an action 



MS. VASQUEZ: Yes, I do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the nature of that 

MS . VASQUEZ : That ' s on three counts . One is 
violation of the Federal Information Practices Act, disclosure 
of my medical records, and damages. 


MS . VASQUEZ : The Department then sent me to a 
fitness for work exam and interfered in the examination. As you 
can see, I am not a black Hispanic. The doctor put me down as a 
black Hispanic. 

He stated that I was born in November 1st of '55, on 
page 1, yet on page 3, he has me a 40-year-old woman, all within 
two pages I've aged. 

The report itself is extremely damaging. It contains 
a lot of inaccuracies. 

I have then taken legal actions to file the complaint 
with the Medical Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Pardon me, but '55 is 40 years 



MS. VASQUEZ: It's '53; I'm 41. At the time I was 

That report was also Xeroxed and shared. 

I was told by the psychiatrist that my supervisor 
would not obtain copies of that document. Yet, three 
individuals found copies of it in the recycle bin in the main 
Xerox room, and also underneath the Xerox machine. 


When the Department asked me to provide them with 
refuting information, I was not aware that this had happened, 
and that four people had come forward to my attorney, presenting 
him with copies of those documents. 

This only shows that Ms . Premo cannot control her 
staff, and I feel as a taxpayer she is not fit as a Director. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many tiers of staffing 
bureaucracy are there between the Director and yourself? 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, her, and then two below her, 
and then yourself. 

MS. VASQUEZ: Uh-huh. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who are those two? 

MS. VASQUEZ: Rich Bayquen, Curtis Richard, and my 
manager . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are they all civil service 

MS. VASQUEZ: No, they're not. They're CEAs . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Your manager? 

MS. VASQUEZ: My manager's the only civil servant. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And then above that — 

MS . VASQUEZ : Are two career appointments . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — career execs, so they're in 
effect exempt from the civil service — 

MS. VASQUEZ: That's correct. 


Are there questions from Members? 

Ms. Premo, I think you probably would wish to respond 


or comment, if you want. 

MS. PREMO: For the very reason that Grace mentioned, 
the confidentiality of the case, although there's many comments 
that could be made, it would — my attorney's advised me that I 
should not comment on any case that is currently under 
litigation, especially of a personnel nature because of the 
issues of confidentiality that Grace talked about. 


MS. PREMO: In a general way, I can respond. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — her medical records were 
distributed — 

MS. PREMO: I don't know that to be the case, 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If that's true, that's a violation 
of the law. 

MS. PREMO: If that were true, but I don't know that 
to be true. 

In a general case, let me tell you what we have done 
since this administration, beginning with Mr. Trainer and then 
myself . 


MS. PREMO: In the area of affirmative action and 
discrimination, we've appoint — we've upgraded the manager, 
Mike Fuentes, and created two additional staff positions to deal 
with the issues of discrimination and affirmative action. 

In the area of reasonable accommodation, when we came 
on board, there was a loose system that was slow. We 
streamlined that system, put procedures together, even color 


coded the top page so that we knew the reasonable accommodations 
were coming. We have 2200 employees and over 104 offices. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is within your own 

MS. PREMO: That's correct. 

In addition to that, we required a central place for 
those reasonable accommodations requests would go. 

Now, specifically addressing the confidentiality act 
of the ADA, many people, consumers and employers, don't 
understand everything that ' s in the Act . 

Grace is absolutely correct, that the Act addresses 
the confidentiality of medical records. They must be kept, by 
law, under a separate folder; not even in the same folder as the 
regular employee documentation. In this Department, we have set 
up a procedure to do that . 

We have also set up a procedure that all discussions 
pertaining to information would be kept confidential. I have 
not seen the details of this case because of that 
confidentiality. Only the people who have dealt with Grace at 
her union level, and in specific at our own manager level that 
deals with this particular action, and her supervisor, would 
have dealt with it. 

Because of the confidentiality that the law requires, 
not only in ADA but in personnel, I cannot get into the 
specifics of her case. 

I can say, though, that since I've been there, the 
Department has increased its vigilance in all areas : sexual 
harassment, affirmative action, civil discrimination suits. And 


we have a very small percentage, given the 2200. I have only- 
been briefed about four complaints in the last three years that 
I have been there. 

So the Department will receive complaints. And there 
will be times, I am sure, that corrective action will need to be 
taken. However, in a department this size, I think that's a 
pretty good number . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: These were complaints about what 
kind of thing? 

MS. PREMO: Broad nature: discrimination, 
affirmative action. The broad kinds of issues, that you want to 
have the process in place to assure that employees have a way to 
express their concerns. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And you would include within those 
four, then, the one we've just heard? 

MS. PREMO: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's hard to understand why the 
Director can't review whether your subordinates violated the law 
in distributing medical records . 

MS. PREMO: I do not in fact know that was true. I 
just can't comment. I cannot comment on the case because of the 

I can just tell you that I do not know that that's 

And the procedures that are followed on paper would 
definitely keep that from being true. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean, the distribution? 

MS. PREMO: The way in which we protect who we allow 


to have documents, the stamping process we use for documents. 
It's big enough for me to read. It says, "Confidential. 
Client-Attorney Privilege." It's stamped on documents. 
Documents are required to be sealed. So, there are things that 
we do, and so I cannot — I can't comment on this particular 
case, but I can say that we have procedures that protect against 
the kinds of things that are occurring. 

If I should discover that they are occurring, yes, 
they will be corrected. And yes, the people who do them will be 
dealt with. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you wish to add anything? 

MS. VASQUEZ: I want to know why the process was 
implemented after I left the Department on June 10th? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Which process? 

MS. VASQUEZ: The confidentiality. 

My understanding is, as an employee of the Department 
of Rehabilitation, and also as an person who wrote some of the 
procedures that she's referring to, the procedure was always in 
place. It is in the federal guidelines and laws. 

There's also a state process in which confidentiality 
is also in your books. It's in the Government Code. 

When I informed the attorney for the Department of 
Rehabilitation, the Department itself said, "Where is it 
written?" And I quoted her the Government Code as well as the 
federal code. 

My concern is that the process of basically 
slanderizing the employee, of not looking at the employee's 
initial complaint and saying, "Okay, you have a complaint. I 


want to hear it," and then it is heard. 

What happens is, there's an enormous amount of 
retaliation to the point where the employees feels overwhelmed. 
And in my particular instance, I tried to work within the 
bureaucratic system, and I was turned away. 

MS. PREMO: Senator, Grace has put in a lawsuit. If, 
in fact, what she alleges is true, that will be determined 
through the legal system. 

It is awkward for us. I have here Gwen, who is our 
attorney, but again, because of the very issues Grace talks 
about, if we begin to discuss the issues, we will harm ourselves 
in terms of the case, her and ourselves, so I would prefer to 
keep this in litigation and to keep it outside of this process. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand. It's clear that 
she's waived any expectation of confidentiality in discussing 
the matter here, and I think you could respond if you feel the 
need to . 

I also don't want to litigate a specific case, 
because that's not our job, other than to take comment on 
management strengths or weaknesses that might be relevant to 

MS. PREMO: I can say in a general sense that if it 
comes to my attention that those things have actually occurred, 
then we will take action. In those cases where we have observed 
flaws in any of the procedural systems, whether they be 
inventory or personnel actions, we have taken action. 

So therefore, in this case, if that is found to be 
true, we will take action. But in this particular case, I just 


would feel more comfortable keeping the case where it needs to 
be, and that's in court. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand your point. 

Thank you very much for your comments . 

Senator Lewis . 

SENATOR LEWIS: Could you possibly describe the 
action you took with regard to maybe one of the other three 
cases to try to remedy? 

MS. PREMO: None of the cases occurred — let me back 

None of the situations which we are now dealing with 
occurred when I was Director. I became Director in February, 
and many of you are familiar with the state system. By the time 
something processes through, you can three directors over. 

In this case, Grace is the closest, is the first 
where I was actually Director, where I'm the sitting Director at 
the time that the case was filed. 

The other cases came to me as Director, or are coming 
to me as Director, way along the course of events. So, either 
Gwen as our attorney would have to respond to what we did in the 

I can only tell you that they're moving through the 
system now in a way that litigation moves through the system. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions from Members of 
the Committee? 

I guess we've probably concluded the opportunity for 
testimony, unless there are others that feel there is some 


compelling need to add anything. 

Ms. Premo , I don't know if you want to conclude in 
any way. 

What I'm going to suggest to the Committee is that we 
take the matter under submission for this next week, and keep it 
on our agenda for vote only in a subsequent hearing. 

But I do want to let you close and respond, if you 
have anything to mention that we haven't already touched on. 

MS. PREMO: I would like to thank the Members for the 
opportunity to present . 

As regarding your questions about Social Security, I 
am the Director of the Department of Rehabilitation. I have a 
$345 million budget. 

My primary responsibility to this state and the 
taxpayers of this state is to oversee that $345 million budget. 

I have a secondary, very important, in my view, 
responsibility, and that is to advise, when asked, or 
proactively, on issues that may affect my constituencies. 

As Director, I have to take the time and have the 
responsibility to deal with those issues which are primary to my 
shop. If I jump around everybody else's shop, the old beam in 
the eye thing, I will not be doing my job. 

While I concur that there needs to be a consistent 
policy in all areas of disability policy, I do not believe it's 
my responsibility, nor should it be an issue of my 
responsibility, to know what every budget item in disability is 
in every department . 

I am happy, however, if it's requested of me, or the 


staff in my Department, to provide, like we did with the Harris 
poll, information that can help guide the Legislature and the 
Governor in those budgetary items. However, as Director of 
Rehab, I can't do the job of my partners in Social Services, the 
Department of Health, or any other department. I can only 
provide the advice. I have no authority to do so. 

So, with that in mind — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Perhaps I'm misreading the job 
description that I'm provided with. 

MS. PREMO: I have nothing to do with Social 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Wait a minute. 

It describes the responsibility and mission of the 
Department of Rehabilitation, which includes among other things: 
advocacy for the rights and opportunities of the disabled. 

Now, if you don't think 10 percent or 8 percent cuts 
in income support for your clients is part of your job, which is 
what you've just said again, fine. 

But I want to give you notice that that attitude 
moves me from an enthusiastic yes, to a disappointed no. 

Now, I'm going to wait a week before trying to go to 
a vote on the matter. I've heard you say it twice; saying it a 
third time, like any other good old Sacramento bureaucrat, isn't 
going to be persuasive, that it has nothing to do with your 
Department, that the money is elsewhere. 

You're abdicating your responsibility to represent 
people who are less able to speak out for themselves, and 
defying an explicit mission objective of your Department. 


So, let's talk about that next week. 

MS. PREMO: That'll be fine, Senator. 

I think on behalf of the folks that I serve, in 
closing, I'd like to say they're very capable of speaking on 
their own behalf. And many of them will be very ardent to 
advocate . 

I don ' t think we need to downgrade people with 
disabilities by believing that those in the community, because 
they happen to be deaf or blind or in a wheelchair, are not very 
able to speak before you in this Committee and the other 
committees on their own behalf about their concerns. 

And it is true, the Department is an advocate. And 
part of that advocacy is to say to you, "Listen to the folks 
from the community." They're very capable of articulating on 
their own behalf. 

Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. I repeat my 
previous comment. I'm frankly quite disappointed. 

Why don't we take a five-minute break, and then we'll 
move to the Air Resources Board. 

[Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We will begin again. 

I guess Mr. Calhoun is first up here. I'll just try 
to pitch soft balls, if you'll take a swing. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have anything you want to 
comment to being? 

MR. CALHOUN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 


I am honored to appear before this Committee today, 
especially in connection with the Senate's consent to my 
appointment to the Air Resources Board. 

I have served on the Board in the automotive 
engineering position for eleven months, and I'd like to continue 
serving in that capacity. 

My work experience and education, I think, uniquely 
qualifies me for the position that I currently occupy. My 
experience, work experience, has been about evenly divided 
between government and private industry, except for the time 
that I spent in the military, of course. 

I got started in this business on March the 12th, 
1956, when I was hired by the Los Angeles County Air Pollution 
Control District as an inspector. And my initial assignment was 
chasing smoking incinerators. I had a lot of subsequent duties 
with the L.A. County Air Pollution Control District, including 
inspection of refiners and chemical plants . 

And later, I moved to the State of California. I was 
assigned to an emissions research and test facility. The 
initial assignment was to study the impact of auto exhaust on 
smog formation, and from there I moved into a laboratory and 
supervised the testing of automobiles and later became Chief of 
Motor Vehicle Compliance for the Air Resources Board. And in 
that job, there was a lot of contact with industry, both the 
automobile manufacturers and with others who were developing 
emission control devices, and I learned a lot from all of the 

In 1974, I went to work for General Motors at its 


Environment Activities Staff at the GM Technical Center in 
Warren, Michigan. My first assignment there was representing GM 
in states other than in California, those states that were 
getting involved in trying to control pollution from 
automobiles. And essentially, the focus was on what's commonly 
known here as Smog Check, or inspection and maintenance. 

Several years later, the person who was responsible 
for the California operation had a stroke, and they assigned me 
to the California assignment. Now, I don't know if the stroke 
was attributed to the pressure of this particular job or not, 
but nevertheless, he was unable to continue in that capacity. 

I continued doing that, and worked in other 
assignments for GM until July, 1993. And during the time I was 
working for GM, I testified before the various legislative 
committee in the Senate and the Assembly, and also testified 
before the Air Resources Board on many occasions. 

Now, a lot of the regulations that are currently on 
the books for the Air Resources Board, I wrote. I presented 
many staff reports to the Board in order to try to justify the 
regulations. So, that's sort of a balanced, balanced 
experience, and that is the thing that I bring to the table. 

I think that as a result of my experience, I can view 
what the staff is saying in an objective manner. I can also 
view what the industry is saying in an objective manner. 

And based on that, I feel that I can make a very good 
decision, based on the input that's been given and presented at 
these regulatory hearings . 

So, with that particular background and education, I 


hope that you will seriously consider confirming me for 
appointment to the Board. 

I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

What's been the toughest question or issue to come by 
during your service up to now on the Board? 

MR. CALHOUN: I can't think of any one particular 
issue. There are a lot of them that we faced thus far that 
called me to agonize over the decision that has to be made, and 
primarily because the Board's staff, especially in the 
automotive field, has proposed technology-forcing regulations. 
And a lot has been accomplished as a result of that. 

However, there are occasions when it's necessary to 
back away from the position that they're proposing, because the 
technology hasn't caught up with the proposed regulations. 

So, the question that you're faced with is, deciding 
when to back off and when not to back off. 

But fortunately, as I've said, I've had enough 
experience with them, such that I can make a fairly good 
judgment of the testimony presented. But that's the thing. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What is it about the staff dynamic 
or culture that would bring you proposals that are 
technologically infeasible? 

MR. CALHOUN: Well, I didn't say — the staff, at the 
time they bring these regulations before the — at the time they 
propose the regulations, they don't know if they're feasible or 
infeasible. They will propose them, and hopefully, the industry 
will develop the technology. 


But in some cases, the industry doesn't succeed in 
getting the technology. In that case, they have to kind of back 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's an example that comes to 
mind of where you thought either going forward or slowing down 
was the correct thing to do in that circumstance? 

MR. CALHOUN: Well, we just had a hearing about three 
or four months ago — three or four weeks ago. And in this 
particular hearing, we were talking about on-board diagnostics. 

The staff had proposed a regulation which would 
require that the manufacturers be able to detect any misfiring 
of the engine at all speeds and loads . And that ' s a very 
difficult decision. There are some speeds and loads that people 
seldom operate at, and the technology just wasn't there. They 
had hoped that it would get there, and they had to backtrack 
from that and try to on with something that was a little more 
reasonable. That's a typical example. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there circumstances, let's say 
zero emission, where there is urging by some to slow down the 
current regulatory timetable that you either agree or disagree 

MR. CALHOUN: I think the Board has already adopted 
the zero emission vehicle, along with a lot of other standards, 
and there has not been any changes in that. 

There are people who advocate that there ought to be 
some changes, but I think the big concern that the auto industry 
has is the mandates, saying you have to sell a certain 
percentage of these vehicles at a given time. And that's an 


understandable concern. 

But we just have to face that, and with the 
regulations still on the books, the manufacturers are working 
diligently, I presume, to try to comply with the deadline, which 
is starting in 1998, and we have to see what develops. 

The big concern I have is whether or not the people 
are going to buy these vehicles. I think that's the concern we 
all will have, and certainly I'm hoping that we'll have a 
successful program. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other Senators? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Calhoun, I'm sure you're aware of 
the proposal by Mayor Riordan that would remove controls in the 
urban areas for pollution yet enhance them down in the inland 
part of Southern California. Dairy farms, and dust, and 
construction, all that. 

Since I'm familiar, I think it can be proven that the 
Inland Empire gets 85 percent of their pollution from the 
L. A. /Orange Counties with intrusion from the west with the 
marine winds . How would that improve the pollution in Los 
Angeles County? 

MR. CALHOUN: Well, yes, I'm aware of the proposal. 
And I can understand your position also. 

SENATOR AYALA: Are you opposed to that? 

MR. CALHOUN: Am I opposed to it, I think the 
position that the Mayor has taken is one that needs to be 
carefully looked at. There are a lot of areas that complain 
about the trash boards . And I think the complaints are 


Like, take San Diego, for example. They complain 
about the pollution from the South Coast Air Basin. 

But I haven't really studied the Mayor's position 
carefully enough in order to be able to — 

SENATOR AYALA: Neither have I, but on the surface 
it's kind of ridiculous, what he's saying. 

I'm not an expert, but it appears to me that by going 
downstream, with the polluters are down there and correct the 
problems in Orange and L.A. Counties is a little bit ridiculous. 

MR. CALHOUN: He's looking out for his city. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm looking out for the Inland 
Empire . 

Anyway, you're not sure you support it or not? 

MR. CALHOUN: No, I wouldn't — just off hand, I 
can't think of supporting transferring pollution from one town 
to another. 

I haven't studied the Mayor's position. I don't know 
all the details of it, so I wouldn't want to take a position on 
it right now. 

SENATOR AYALA: There's a study by, I think, the Farm 
Bureau. Over the last ten years, there's been at least $100 
million of damage to crops as a result of ozone. Are you 
familiar with that? 

MR. CALHOUN: Over the years, that has been one of 
the main concerns, is about the need to control ozone. And that 
is because it does damage crops . 

And that is really kind of the impetus for some of 
the programs — 


SENATOR AYALA: Will the ARB take a look at that 
report at all? 

MR. CALHOUN: I don't know if the ARB has taken a 
look at that report, but that's not a new story. 

SENATOR AYALA: Okay, so it's old. 

MR. CALHOUN: That's old. 

SENATOR AYALA: But what have you done about it if 
it's old? 

MR. CALHOUN: Well, one of the things that the Air 
Resources Board has done is try to control the formation of 
ozone. And in order to control the formation of ozone, there's 
a need to control hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. 

And I think there's a good record of the progress 
that has been made in controlling hydrocarbons and oxides of 
nitrogen, and that controls the — would tend to lessen the 
formation of ozone. 

SENATOR AYALA: How are we doing with the SIP, the 
State Implementation Plan? Do we have any plan we're really 
following at this point? 

MR. CALHOUN: Well, we filed the plan at the 
prescribed deadline. The feds have reacted to it initially by 
not taking a position on the plan that we adopted and said 
they're going to hold off for a couple years before making any 
kind of decision. 

But the state has — the State of California did 
submit its implementation plan on time. 

SENATOR AYALA: But if the South Coast Air Pollution 
District came up with some way to control smog on automobile 



You have to approve it first before they will 
implement it; correct? 

MR. CALHOUN: If — the South Coast District, along 
with all the other air quality management districts, are 
required to submit a plan to meet the state ambient air quality 
standards . The Air Resources Board has to approve those plans . 
And then, once the plans are approved, the local agency must 
develop rules also, but the enforcement and implementation of 
the rules is left up to the local agencies. 

SENATOR AYALA: But if your Board approves the plan, 
they don't look at the regulations after that? 

MR. CALHOUN: Oh, yes. If the Board approves a plan, 
the local agencies must then follow and develop the regulations 
to implement the plan. And these regulations are also submitted 
to the Air Resources Board. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm concerned about the 
fragmentation that we seem to have. Looking at the overall air 
pollution problem, there's several different agencies that are 
supposed to regulate parts of it. You know, like automobile 
smog control system, and the pesticide group used to be within 
the Department of Agriculture, and now it's under EPA. About 
four of them seem to overlap, and in some cases, one agency 
says, "Well, we'll not allowed to do that. It's the other 
agency." Then it turns out it's not being covered. 

I understand from our notes here that there is some 


discussion going on between the ARB and the Department of 
Pesticide Regulation to reach some kind of agreement. Are you 
familiar with that? 

MR. CALHOUN: Yes, to some extent. This was, 
regroupment was required, and most of the discussion that took 
place, took place prior to the development of the State 
Implementation Plan, because in order for the state to develop a 
plan to control some of the pesticides, there was a need to get 
these other departments on board and to discuss them. And they 
did get together with the ARB staff and developed a plan, and 
that's included as part of the State Implementation Plan and was 
submitted to — 

SENATOR PETRIS: When was that adopted? 

MR. CALHOUN: The plan, I believe, was adopted on the 
14th or the 15th; on the 14th, I believe, of November. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have you been able to observe its 
operation to see how it ' s going? 

MR. CALHOUN: The plan has just been submitted to the 
federal government for — 

SENATOR PETRIS: You haven't gotten approval yet? 

MR. CALHOUN: No, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: As I understand it, if we don't 
adopt a plan that's acceptable to them, then they take over the 


SENATOR PETRIS: And that's bad for everybody. 

MR. CALHOUN: That's correct. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Including the farmers who use these 


things, and industrial users, and everybody else. 

MR. CALHOUN: That's one of the reasons why so much 
emphasis was placed on the importance of adopting a plan. And 
so, we did hold many hearings — hold hearings and finalized the 
plan, and submitted it to the EPA on time. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What is your impression of the plan? 
Do you think it's adequate? Is it strong in its enforcement? 

MR. CALHOUN: Well, I hope so; I hope so. I think 
there's a lot in it, and a lot to do in order to implement that 

But the feds now — the federal government will take 
a look at the plan, evaluate it, and decide whether they think 
it ' s adequate or not . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are you optimistic about it? 

MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I am. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator, may I on that point 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there any piece of the plan, 
the SIP, that is, that you regard as weak, overly optimistic, or 
any defect that gives you any concern at all? 

MR. CALHOUN: Not at this time. I think the — when 
we start adopting the rules to implement this plan, then we'll 
really find out how successful we're going to be. But as of 
right now, I say no. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: As a general sketch, it feels 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: As I understand it, there's an 
element that would require retiring about 75,000 automobiles 
that are the high polluting vehicles. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Does the plan talk about how to 
pay for that? 

MR. CALHOUN: No, it does not. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What discussions have occurred? 

MR. CALHOUN: Well, there were a lot of discussions a 
the Board hearings, and there are a lot of discussions now about 
going on among the proponents of that particular program, and 
there's been a few internal discussions within the Air Resources 
Board staff about this. And I suppose there are different ways 
of funding it. For example, it's conceivable that the industry 
may be offered some incentive to buy up a lot of these old cars 
themselves. And I think that's a possibility. I think it's one 
we ought to pursue. 

I think also in the different counties, for example, 
I believe in the City of Los Angeles, they impounded something 
like 30,000 vehicles this past year. Those are vehicles that — 
and they dispose of them through auction. Some of those 
vehicles should be used, and the funds coming from them, could 
be used to support that . 

I just think it's something that warrants taking a 
real good look at, especially when you consider that these old 
vehicles, many of them are real high polluters. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Would the ARB have to come up with 
a funding scheme, or is that somebody else's job? 


MR. CALHOUN: I think the — at the hearing, this was 
one of the issues that was discussed extensively, and we had 
representatives there from Western States Petroleum Association, 
the oil companies, and some other, the California Trucking 
Association, who had very strong feelings about this. And they 
committed themselves to help develop the necessary support to 
get legislation, or whatever is required, in order to fund this 
program. And obviously, the Board's going to be a party to 
this . 


I guess there ' s something of an ongoing dispute that 
relates to renewable resources as part of the fuel policies for 
the state . 

Could you maybe just educate me as to the current 
status of that discussion before the Board? 

MR. CALHOUN: One of the things that I'm aware is the 
concern about ethanol . I had a meeting sometime ago at the 
request of some of the proponents of ethanol. They wanted to 
meet with me and discuss this, because they felt that the 
position that the Board took relative to the use of ethanol in 
this particular state was not the right position to take, and 
they were concerned about it . 

And this was sort of after the fact when it came to 
my attention. And I say, well, why are you telling me about it, 
because it's something that's already happened. And I said I 
assume that the reason why you wanted to bring it to my 
attention is because you'd like the issue revisited. And they 
said they would. 


And I said there are ways of doing that. You can 
petition the Board, you can talk to the staff and ask the staff 
to take another look at it, and may be the staff will come in 
with some changes, or you can come to the Board itself and try 
to do something on your own. 

And I think they will probably do that, one of those 
two or three things . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This hasn't been discussed while 
you were a member of the Board? 

MR. CALHOUN: No, sir, not that I can recall it was 

As I say, it was discussed with me. It was brought 
to my attention sometime within the past two or three months . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Not as a Board member? 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Just to be clear about this, it 
was a problem that led, I think, to the withdrawal of Ms. 
Schafer's nomination. There was documentation presented to this 
Committee that indicated or suggested a lack of independence 
from regulated industries on the former Chair's part. 

We were going to vote no, and the Governor chose to 
withdraw it . 

I take you at your word that this hasn ' t been a 
matter discussed or reviewed by you. All I would urge on you is 
to comply with the law and be independent . You ' re an 
independent regulator, so use your best judgment and don't 
succumb to political pressures. Just do the job. 

Other questions? 


SENATOR PETRIS: Is this on the fuel dispute? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That was where I was. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I wanted to ask something on 
that, too. 

We have the situation in which the state is — is 
there a lawsuit pending against the Federal EPA, or oil refiners 
filed and we joined in? Are you familiar with that? 

MR. CALHOUN: I don't know. I believe there is. I'd 
have to — I don't know that to be a fact. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's a very important part of what 
Senator Lockyer was going into. We've got a strange alliance 
here, where the oil refiners don't like the gasoline additive 
rules that the federal government adopted, so they sued them. 
Then we jump in as a state, two state agencies, in support of 
the refiners. 

Their function is really to make sure we have clean 


SENATOR PETRIS: Now, I don't know. Do they feel 
that the additive policy of the federal government will pollute 
the air further, or it's too much of a burden on the refiners to 
do whatever the federal government wants them to do? You're not 
familiar with that? 

MR. CALHOUN: I am familiar with it, but not to any 
detailed extent. 

I do know that there was some action taken at the 
federal level, but I don't know all the details enough about it. 

As I said, the only thing that came to my attention 


was just something that occurred within the past two or three 
months, where they approached me about this issue. And I told 
them if they wanted something done about it, and wanted the 
state to take another look at it, they should take the 
appropriate action in order to bring it back before the Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: As I understand the policy, and it 
seems to be the appropriate one, it's supposed to be fuel 

MR. CALHOUN: That's correct, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When the Chair submits comments to 
the federal government that are prepared in the law office of 
one of the oil companies involved, that seems to violate the 
basic — and I don't mean for you to get drawn into that dispute 
in any way, sir, but just to indicate why there's a concern. 

If fuel neutrality is the policy, follow the policy. 

MR. CALHOUN: That's the Board's policy as I 
understand it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Does that seem appropriate to you? 

MR. CALHOUN: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator, I didn't mean to cut you 

SENATOR PETRIS: No, that's fine. 

Get back to the SIP, first there was a federal court 
decision that we were out of compliance all over the place. As 
I understand it, 90 percent of all Calif ornians live in areas 
that exceed the amount of pollution permitted under both federal 
and state limits. 

The L.A. air basin exceeds the federal smog standards 


by up to 200 percent on roughly half of the days each year. 
That's the price of having a lot of sunshine, I guess, part of 
it. And that, of course, is injurious to the public health; it 
destroys crops; it kills trees. 

Up in your area, that smog comes in there, knocks out 
a big part of the forest over a period of years; it even eats up 
buildings . 

So, I'm concerned that in spite of all of our 
efforts, we still have this horrible problem. That's why I 
asked earlier if you thought the state plan, the Implementation 
Plan, was strong enough to really do what we need to do to get 
out of this situation. We've got to improve our situation. 

Now, is your opinion based on having working on it, 
or was most of that done before you came on board? 

MR. CALHOUN: My opinion, Senator, is based on my 
knowledge of the plan. And we are required to submit a plan 
that shows attainment with the federal ambient air quality 

And the Air Resources Board has adopted of very 
stringent standards, especially in the automobiles. They've 
adopted standards that require reformulation of the gasoline, 
and they are talking about — we also have a requirement for 
electric vehicles. 

And based on this particular plan, they project being 
able to meet the ambient air quality standard. 

Now, a lot of progress has been made. A lot of cars 
are — there's a turnover of automobiles, and I think we're 
going to continue to make progress. 


So, I'm optimistic that we will meet the federal 
ambient air quality standard, but I can't sit here and 
absolutely say that when D-Day comes, we're going to be there. 

But I can say, based on the plan, I believe that we 
will make the necessary changes that need to be made in order to 
get there . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Does that plan include the 
automobile conversion to electric cars? 

MR. CALHOUN: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: A certain number by the year 2000? 

MR. CALHOUN: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you support that? 

MR. CALHOUN: The South Coast District has suggested 
that it may be necessary to get to something on the order of 40 
percent in order to meet the ambient air quality standard. 

I don't if that would be necessary or not, but if 
there's a way, some other way of accomplishing the same 
objective, and it's going to be less costly, I see no reason why 
I shouldn't support that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Some people think it'll create a lot 
more jobs, the switch over to the electric. 


SENATOR PETRIS: It doesn't apply in every part of 
the part, just in the worst polluted areas. 


SENATOR PETRIS: Everybody will be driving golf carts 
down there. 

But other than the industry itself, is there active 


opposition to that kind of a plan? Of course, the manufacturers 
aren't happy, I can understand that. 

MR. CALHOUN: Well, if you ask me if there is active 
opposition to it, I suppose if I were selling gasoline, I might 
not want to see all the electric cars on the road. 

And I don't think the automobile industry, per se, is 
opposed to electric vehicles. I believe they're opposed to a 
requirement that you must have 10 percent by this date. 

I think that a lot of emphasis is being put into 
developing electric vehicles, and I would not be surprised if 
you saw them on the street before the start date. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, they've been working on it for 
sometime. All the major manufactures are working on it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We've got one in the garage, but 
it seems to have about a 2 0-mile cord. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I had legislation on that in 
the '60s. The automobile manufacturers opposed it. 

If they had gone along with me, they wouldn't have 
had the deadline. 

MR. CALHOUN: I recall this, Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You were with General Motors, 

No, they sent somebody else, General Motors, from 
headquarters to oppose it, and I started asking him a lot of 
questions — very important, this issue. I'm sorry about the 
deviation — that were kind of technical regarding the effects 
of the gasoline and impacts, and this and that, and their 
manufacturing process as well, and why they weren't moving 


faster to clean it up. 

And the fellow said, "Well, I'm just a bookkeeper. 
I'm in the accounting department." 

I said, "That's why they sent you out here, because 
you can't answer any of the questions." 

I'm glad you remember that era. 

Let me go over to agricultural pesticides. I've been 
interested in that for a long time. 

We have some information that the EPA has estimated 
that the pesticides which are used in agriculture contribute 
10-15 percent of the volatile organic compounds that contribute 
to the pesticide problem in the agricultural regions: 
Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley. 

That's a very hefty percentage. 


SENATOR PETRIS: Now, EPA has proposed a program to 
regulate the contents as one element of the SIP, but the state 
regulations are not moving. They're in limbo. 

There again is this fractionalization. The ARB says 
that's not our job; that's Department of Pesticide Regulation. 
And that's created a little hiatus there, a gap. 

I'm interested in finding out why the two agencies 
don't get together? 

MR. CALHOUN: The two agencies did, Senator Petris . 
Just before — in the process of developing the SIP, the 
Department of Pesticide Regulation got together with the ARB, 
and the ARB got together with them, and there was a lot of 
interaction. And they testified before the Board at these 


public hearings, when we were in the process of developing the 
plan. And their input is included in the plan that was 
submitted to the federal government . 

SENATOR PETRIS: We go back to the first question: 
is it really strong, and how effective is it likely to be? I 
guess we don't know until it's operating. 

MR. CALHOUN: As I said, I think the plan itself is 
adequate. A lot of effort went into it. A lot of the effort 
will be put into development of all the regulations to implement 
what's in the plan. 

I'm hopeful that we will be successful. 

SENATOR PETRIS: In the agricultural side, I 
understand the damage to the crops is still running at $100 
million a year, and that's our biggest industry. 


SENATOR PETRIS: And our biggest export. 

When are we going to find out? Are you going to let 
us know sometime in the next year? 

MR. CALHOUN: When am I going to let you know what? 

SENATOR PETRIS: If it's working, if it's being 
enforced and it's working. 

MR. CALHOUN: Well, I think the best evidence, 
Senator, we have that the overall air quality plan is working is 
to take a look at the air pollution, the month; not just on a 
day to day basis . Take a look at the results . 

And I don't think there's any question but that you 
can see that the levels are coming down. I don't think there's 
any question about that . 


Maybe they aren't coming down as fast as some people 
would like. 

So, I think the plan is working. I think the program 
works . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I hope you're right. You 
know, the problem's been around for an awful long time. 

MR. CALHOUN: That's right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are you familiar with the term 
"environmental justice"? 

MR. CALHOUN: In what context? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, for a long time, we've been 
told by health officials and scientists that the most hazardous 
area with respect to air pollution is in low income and minority 
residential districts, I guess because they live near the 
factory, or they live near the source of pollution. 

And the ARB has said it's going to address that 
problem and do it as quickly as it can. 

Has that come up at all during your attendance at 

MR. CALHOUN: No, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are you familiar with it at all? 

MR. CALHOUN: I have attended some of the South Coast 
hearings, and I've heard some discussion there, very briefly, 
about it, but I have not heard any discussions at the Air 
Resources Board level. There may have been some that I was just 
not a party to them. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I would invite you and urge you to 
really take a good look at that. It's a very serious problem. 


MR. CALHOUN: All right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And I think we may have to revisit 
our planning policies, state and local, and site planning of 
polluters . 

And I know they ' re not going to move into my 
neighborhood, because it's pretty well protected by citizens 
who ' re very active in the community, and they're business people 
and professional people. So, they don't worry about it. 

But there are other neighborhoods in my home town, in 
Oakland, that are very vulnerable. And they don't have the 
power to do anything. They're the victims. 

And it seems to me, the ARB really ought to be 
looking into that and making recommendations on siting 
factories, whatever the nature of the pollution is, in addition 
to trying to improve the standards by preventing the pollution 
in the first place. 

Senator Roberti used to have legislation three or 
four years in a row attacking the problem at the site and 
saying, "We want you to clean this up so that you're not 
producing pollution anymore as a by-product of your activity 
here . " 

I don't know if very much of that is going on right 
now, but it seems to me the ARB ought to be sensitive to that. 

MR. CALHOUN: I'll make a note of it and take a look 
at it. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Further questions? 

Is there anyone present who would wish to testify, 


either for or against? 

Senator Lewis . 

SENATOR LEWIS: I as curious. How would you 
characterize the difference in air quality in the South Coast 
Basin in the last ten years? 

MR. CALHOUN: Oh, in the last ten — can I go back a 
little bit beyond that? 


MR. CALHOUN: I'd like to go back to the summer of 
1955. I'd just gotten out of the Army and was going to the 
Engineering School at USC. And the pollution was so thick you 
could almost cut it with a knife. 

And when I sit back — and not only that. The 
people's eyes were irritated and running, sneezing. 

And when I look at the air today and compare it to 
where it was some 40 years ago, I don't think there's any 
question in my mind that a lot of progress has been made. 

And I think that we are faced with now is moving down 
to very low levels, because that's going to get costly. It's 
going to be very, very costly to move to much lower levels. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Your memory coincides with mine, 
because I grew up in L. A. I certainly remember it being a lot 
worse then than it is now. 

What do you think, if you had to put your finger on 
the two or three policy things or technological advances, or 
whatever, if you could prioritize, what in your mind has brought 
about a diminution of the smog problem in the South Coast Basin? 
What would be your guess? 


MR. CALHOUN: Well, I think one of the things that 
has happened has been a tremendous growth. There's no question 
in my mind there's more vehicles in that particular area. And 
there are a lot of old cars on the road, and they contribute a 
tremendous amount to the overall air pollution problem. 

I don't know exactly what the service life is of most 
of the vehicles, but I do know many have been on the road for a 
long time. And if you look at nationwide, about 20 percent of 
the cars cause about 50 percent of the pollution problems. 

In the South Coast Air Basin, you're looking at about 
10 percent of the cars causing somewhere in the neighborhood of 
about 30 percent of the overall air pollution problems. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Even with all the cars, though, 
the expansion and growth, it seems like there's cleaner air. It 
may not be clean enough, but it's cleaner. 

How did it get clean? 

MR. CALHOUN: Well, because there's technology that's 
being used on the automobiles. Technology's being used in the 
refineries. The gasoline's a little cleaner today than it was. 

I think the catalytic converter has been a major 
contributor to the cleanup of the overall air pollution problem. 

And I think that as you get more of those old 
vehicles off the road, and get more of these cars with new 
technology on it, you're going to see a major change. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the pleasure of the 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion to recommend 



Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 


SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

MR. CALHOUN: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck, sir. 

Senator Beverly, will you take the Chair for a few 
minutes . 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Next in order is Mr. Jack C. 
Parnell. Good afternoon. 

MR. PARNELL: Senator. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Would you like to make a statement 
or tell us briefly why you're qualified for this post? 

MR. PARNELL: Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members 
of the Senate Rules Committee, I am extremely pleased to be here 
seeking Senatorial consent for my nomination to the Air Board. 

Unless there's a reason to do otherwise, in the 
interest of time, I'll not review my past involvement with state 
and federal governments. It's been considerable, and I trust — 


if it would serve any purpose, I ' d be more than happy to do 

But I'd rather use the time to say that we take the 
challenges of clean air very seriously. We think it's a serious 
issue. And also to state that California, because of its large 
population and geographic uniqueness, presents challenges that 
require unique and clear thinking, as well as well-explained and 
bold actions from time to time in order to make progress. 

The road that we're traveling down to cleaner air 
clearly has not been traveled before. There are no sign posts 
along the way, so there are considerable challenges that require 
judgments to be made from time to time. Sometimes we're right; 
sometimes we're wrong. 

But California clearly has set a high standard for 
itself and has been leading the nation in the environmental 
improvement, and I'm committed to continue that environmental 
improvement, and continue that tradition. 

I ' d be pleased to go into more details as to my 
background, but will dispense with that in the interest of time, 
unless you deem otherwise. I'd be happy to take any questions. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Let's see what the questions are. 
Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I notice Mr. Soares is here sitting 
with you. He's your partner, isn't he, or was? 

MR. PARNELL: He is not my partner, but I have — I 
do some consulting with that law firm that George is a member 

SENATOR PETRIS: So, this Kohn, Soares and Conway is 



a law firm? 

MR. PARNELL: It's a law firm. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I raise the question of a 
possible conflict. I'd like you to answer it. 

ARB, as we indicated earlier, you don't have 
jurisdiction over agricultural problems, pesticides. That's 
that other department . 

But Mr. Soares was very active in opposing cleanup 
legislation regarding the use of chemicals, pesticides, 
eliminating some of them from use, and trying to find better 
alternatives, and so forth. He and I have been friendly 
adversaries for years on that issue. 

I'm wondering if any of that spills over. I don't 
want to be unkind, but I wonder if he's polluted the air in your 
law firm to think everything's okay and you don't need to clear 
it up, and here you are on the Air Resources Board? 

MR. PARNELL: Senator Petris, I fully appreciate — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Not in your law firm, in his law 
firm to which you are a consultant. 

MR. PARNELL: I appreciate the question, and that is 
a legitimate concern. 

Certainly, I served here, as you remember, as the 
Director of Agriculture, and I think met with you on a regular 
basis — 


MR. PARNELL: • — to try to implement in an effective 
way SB 950, and had continued to do that during my federal 
service as Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. Tried to make some 


sense out of what EPA was doing versus USDA. 

And George Soares, obviously, and the law firm has a 
number of agricultural clients. And if called upon, I may give 
advice to them with respect to the directions that we're going, 
but certainly in no way would it compromise my judgment. 

SENATOR PETRIS: They have chemical companies also, 
don't they? 

MR. PARNELL: They represent some chemical companies. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Manufacturers of pesticides? 

MR. PARNELL: That's correct. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I remember. As a matter of fact, 
maybe it's part of your testimony on this same subject. You 
said you agreed, and as long as you were around, you were going 
to enforce the law to the best of your ability and make sure 
these bad things don't happen. 

But you didn't think any particular solution that I 
had in the form of a statute was the best way to go. It's 
better to do it with more flexibility administratively and all 

And I said, "Well, that's okay, but for all I know, 
you may wind up in Washington, and here we are with a weak law 
because we were counting on you to do the right thing. " 

And then you did go to Washington. What's your 
present view of that? Don't we need tough statutes to take care 
of these, regardless of who's in office and who's administering 

MR. PARNELL: I think we do need tough statutes, and 
I believe at the federal level — you've done wonderful things 


at the state level. At the federal level, they'll be revisiting 
FIFRA as they approach the activities of this Congress. 

And I wrote President Bush's approach to 
reauthorization of FIFRA while I was in Washington, that 
basically strengthened cancellation procedures, a more truncated 
process and some of those things that I think you were 
advocating for, just so that we could make sense. And not to 
the extent that we would totally neglect to recognize the 
importance, and you mentioned it here in this hearing, Senator, 
the importance of agriculture, but to defend them not to a 
fault. Let's make sure that what we're doing is right, correct, 
and it serves the best interests of all of the people all of the 

And it was in that spirit that we were looking for 
some changes in FIFRA back in 1989 and 1990. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I appreciate your 
contributions . 

My quarrel was never really with the growers, 
although they thought so. My plea to them was, get out of my 
way and let me go after the chemical companies . But they were 
permitting themselves to be used as shields by the chemical 
companies who convinced them that they couldn't live without the 
chemical companies, which I still think is an erroneous 
assertion on their part. 

Those are the only questions I had. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Any further questions from Members? 

SENATOR AYALA: Only the question I asked Mr. Calhoun 
on the good Mayor trying to shift the responsibility to the 


recipients, not the people who create the problem. 

What is your position on that? 

MR. PARNELL: Well, you know that in the SIP that we 
presented, there are some elements of that Riordan proposal. 

I will say that as the SIP is reviewed, and as they 
get into the regulatory procedure, Senator Ayala, there'll have 
to be a cost effectiveness analysis and a feasibility analysis. 

Basically, the whole socioeconomic analysis will have 
to be made, and I think at that time, it'll be shown for what it 

SENATOR AYALA: It seems to me that the inland part 
of Southern Cal, they're downstream polluters. They pollute as 
well, but the main source of pollution is Orange and Los Angeles 
Counties. And to treat the symptoms instead of the causes, the 
Mayor's off base, as far as I'm concerned. 

MR. PARNELL: We fully have appreciate for your point 
of view, and I'll be anxiously awaiting this regulatory process 
to move forward so that it can be impacted. 

SENATOR AYALA: Being involved with agriculture as 
you have, I'm sure you're familiar with the survey by the Farm 
Bureau about the crops, and the loss due to the ozone. 


SENATOR AYALA: And ARB ' s not doing anything about 
that at all, are they? 

MR. PARNELL: Well, I'm unclear as to what's 
happening. I think that there are some arguments that have to 
be looked at contained in the Farm Bureau, which basically speak 
to the issue of, if we don't grow agricultural commodities in a 


particular area, and the sequestration of C0 2 , that growing 
products, growing crops, may in fact really contribute to the 
reduction of ozone. 

And I don't think that's been fairly looked at. It 
will be looked at, I'm certain, over time to determine whether 
or not there should be an appropriate offset given to those 
kinds of activities. 

SENATOR AYALA: The growth, obviously, has 
contributed, because there are more automobiles. And I was told 
a long time ago that the automobile emissions are the probably 
the worst polluters than anything else we have. 

But that's controlled, and that's by Washington, 
isn't it, the problem of automobile emissions are the 
responsibility of — is it our responsibility here at the ARB? 

MR. PARNELL: Yes. In the Clean Air Act, it gives us 
great responsibility, and that's part of what the SIP does. We 
have done historically in the past a lot to improve emissions. 
In fact, it's been remarkable the amount of progress that's been 

But clearly, it is the responsibility of the regional 
air control boards, and our own, to continue the reduction. The 
only exemption we have is farm equipment, and those issues like 
ships and trains which come interstate that are controlled by 
the federal government . 

SENATOR AYALA: Somebody mentioned the fact that in 
spite of the fact that we're growing, the air is much cleaner 
now than it was ten years ago, and we hope to continue to 
improve it. That's only because, I think, the automobile 


emissions have been controlled at the factory in Detroit, not in 
Southern Cal. 

MR. PARNELL: That's true, it does — most of the 
remedies are put on, Senator, at the factory, but mandated by 
the California and the California Air Resources Board. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Is there anyone here who wishes to 
testify in favor of the appointment? Is there any opposition? 
Apparently not. 

What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR AYALA: Move the nomination. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: We have a motion to recommend 
confirmation. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 


SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: We will leave the roll open for 
Senator Lockyer. 

Congratulations . 

MR. PARNELL: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 
[Thereupon the final vote for 
confirmation was 5-0, as Senator 


Lockyer ' s aye vote was added 
pursuant to Senate Rule 2 8.7] 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Next in order, Doug E. Vagim. 

MR. VAGIM: Thank you, Senator Beverly. For the 
record, my name is Doug Vagim. I'm a Supervisor from Fresno 
County. I have been a Supervisor there since 1989. I'm in my 
second term as Supervisor. 

And I want to, before I get too much further, thank 
my family for being here, my wife and daughter, and my 
daughter ' s on a semester break from a year-around school and 
learning the Legislature first-hand. 

I served as the air basin authority when I served — 
when I began my term as Supervisor, which was loosely coupled 
body of eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley before the 
formation of a unified district. 

During the year of 1990-91, the eight counties took 
the task of, under the Health and Safety Code, to form a unified 
control district. 

In addition, there was legislation being moved 
through the Legislature that included Senator McCorquodale, and 
now, of course, Senator Costa, then Assemblyman Costa's 
legislation. And I was working directly with Assemblyman Costa 
in the amendments to SB 124, which were successful. And that 
amendment, which basically modified the unified district 
concept, is what the San Joaquin Valley District is running 
under now . 

The achievements the district has wrought are immense 
when you consider the fact that the district is the largest air 


basin in the United States representing something close to 25 
percent of the California land mass, and nearly 16 percent of 
its population base. 

In 1992, there abouts, then Assemblyman Costa moved a 
bill that was eventually passed by the Legislature, to add two 
more positions on the California Air Resources Board, one of 
them being the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

I acted as the Valley District ' s Chair during the 
formation year, which was what I would always characterize as 
tantamount to the unification of Eastern Europe. It was a very 
difficult task with eight different staffs, eight different 
salary resolutions, and MOUs of many different employees, and we 
were able, with our good staff, put that district together, and 
I believe have one of the best districts in the state. 

I was able to achieve, with competition amongst my 
colleagues of the Unified District, the appointment to the 
California Air Resources Board, and have been there since, of 
course, February, 1993. 

Since then, the relationship between district and ARB 
is something that has what I would consider taken a lot of the 
cloud off of exactly what we do here in California as far as 
trying to achieve clean air. So much is done on the stationary 
sources through the district, but when you add the mobile 
sources , when you add the consumer products , when you add the 
overall responsibility the state has to answer to the federal 
government and its Clean Air Acts, you see the relationship, and 
it is a very important relationship that I think should be 


maintained. Local control of air is very important, but 
oversight by the state is equally important. 

I have been able to take back, both to the district 
and from the district back to ARB, input and offered my 
observations and input during discussions of regulations, and 
also discussions of moderation from my district when it came to 
issues of just who has control here. 

We've done a lot of what I consider important 
informational items that are going to be needed in the future, 
which basically are giving us better science to clean up air. 
Of course, those have been through our study models that the San 
Joaquin Valley District, with the help of the state, federal 
government, and various agencies within the federal government, 
including the Department of Defense, have undertook. A lot of 
private energy into this also, and that's both the ozone model 
study that the Valley District has sponsored, along with CARB, 
and now the ongoing and beginning of the — we're in the 
fundraising stage and also doing some work right now in the PM10 
model for the San Joaquin Valley District. And that'll be a $23 
million project. The ozone project was around $16 million 

That will help the Valley District understand its 
PM10 problems better and how to solve them, and also as well as 
the ozone model was able to give us the tools to be part of the 
State Implementation Plan, and we're able to tweak our plan to 
off to the state a better alternative than something without 
good science. 

So with that, Senator Beverly, I will end by saying 


that my stint of just under one year on the Air Resources Board 
has been a very rewarding one, and I feel that it is something 
that the Valley has appreciated, and has, I believe, been able 
to see how important the seat is for the Valley District to have 
that position. 

Thank you . 


Any questions of the nominee? Senator Petris . 


My information is that the ARB isn't carrying out the 
statutory mandate to have pollution reduced by five percent in 
each district over a three-year period. The State Board is 
supposed to prod them and make sure they do it. Unless I'm 
misinformed, they're just not doing it. 

Can you tell us why? 

MR. VAGIM: Well, I can speak first-hand from the 
Valley District. 

We had by obligation, as you well know, to file the 
State Implementation Plan by November, and the Valley District 
was one of the districts that met the criteria to submit a plan. 
And we submitted our plan, which addressed our serious level of 
pollution under the federal standards. 

In addition, there's a rate of progress plan that you 
need to file, and was filed with the SIP. 

I believe that the Valley District has met in its 
actual implemented rules the five percent reduction on the sheer 
evidence that when you look at the sheer number of ozone days 
that have been not exceeded in this last year, we are way down 


from where we were just three years ago. 

And I think you can say that all over the State of 
California; the exceedences are less now than they were just 
three years ago . 

SENATOR PETRIS: In all the districts? 

MR. VAGIM: In all the districts. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that due to the use of the 
following plan by all the districts, or is it some other reason? 

MR. VAGIM: Well, I think it's a combination. 
There ' s a combination of putting together a good program on the 
stationary sources , but in addition the program that the State 
ARB has put together in its vehicle program, and in addition to 
its other consumer products, and what-have you. These all have 
addressed a little bit. 

You know, air emission's a bubble that's fixed. And 
if you're going to clean it up, you're going to clean it up 
within that bubble, so every little bit helps. And I think ARB 
has taken that tact and so have the districts . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you think they're on line and on 

MR. VAGIM: I think we're on track. And I think the 
proof of the pudding's going to come when we get closer to those 
dates and we actually see our monitoring stations show us actual 
results, because that's the only truth that we see is what the 
monitoring stations are going to show us . 

And basically, they have shown to date less days of 
exceedence, just going back one or two years. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Part of the SIP calls for 


eliminating about 75,000 high emission vehicles. In what period 
of time? Is that the three-year cycle? 

MR. VAGIM: Well, the 75,000 was a kick-in by the 
year 2010, which was going to be an annual reduction. 

Now, Senator, I've had a problem with that from the 
very beginning, because I don't believe that's going to be 
easily achievable. 

First of all, I have a social problem as a 
Supervisor. I have a lot of folk in my district who drive old 
cars, and I want to know what price they're going to end up 
paying driving newer cars to get to an air model achievement. 

We need to get to that point of getting them into 
cleaner cars, but the public will end up paying for that program 
to the tune of, if it's the 75,000 car in South Coast alone, 
somewhere in the neighborhood of, if you average $100 — I mean, 
it's going to be a $500 average someone has come up with; 
someone is saying more. If you bait it, it's going to go up to 
a thousand. Everytime you try to give incentives, it's going to 
go up, the price is going to go up, because the guy's going to 
say, "I've got an old car. How much you want to get that 
pollution credit for it?" 

So, we may end up spending a lot of money in that 
program needlessly, when we could actually force — and I was 
more in favor of keeping a little bit more pressure on the 
industry, on technological issues. 

And that ' s why the State Implementation Plan was not 
— we didn't throw away those emissions that we felt that we 
were going to get out of the 75,000 vehicles. We put them in 


the front burner to say the test now is going to be on the 
industries. If you can't find them by a certain date, the 
technological answers are going to kick in, and I feel it's a 
sound way to do it . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are they ready to go, the 
technological answers? 

MR. VAGIM: The last vestige that was left is in the 
front burner where industry is going to come back to us and tell 
us how they're going to do it, or prove to us that 75,000 cars 
can be achievable and is actually going to be the quantifiable 
emission reduction. That's the question that's been left. 

But remember, 2010 is the kick-in date, and we have 
some time to take a look at that before. And we are going to be 
monitoring that very closely. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I thought the idea was to buy them, 
but we don't have the money. We were going to buy them and get 
them off the road. 

MR. VAGIM: It's a very expensive program when you 
look at per vehicle emission reduction. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That was the thought of that when 
they created the plan. 

MR. VAGIM: Well, no, those were discussed. And I 
raised a lot of questions about that. 

And we were going to bury the technological points in 
the very back part of the plan, which was not ever — never 
needed to be raised because they were our very technological 
emission reduction part of the plan. 

It's been brought to the front burner on our plan. 


Industry's been put on notice: you've said that you could do 
this by crushing vehicles. We're going to give you a shot at 
it, but you also have to look at the total emissions through 
technology. If it looks like one of us is not going to be 
right, and if we're right, you're going to be polishing up your 
apple on technological . 

Of course, those are alternative fuel vehicles, more 
zero emission vehicles, and what-have you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We're talking about old clunkers; 
aren't we? 

MR. VAGIM: Yes, but in place of that — 

SENATOR PETRIS: They don't have any control over 
those. What are they going to do, recall them after 15 years? 

MR. VAGIM: Well, what they're trying to say is that 
they're going to buy them from those folks by offering the price 
better than what they could sell them to their neighbor, or to a 
junk dealer. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And who's going to buy them? 

MR. VAGIM: The districts will buy them through some 
source which is contracting out to some private source. Like, 
for example, in the Valley District, we contract with a 
consortium of local agencies in the south part of our valley in 
Kern County. It's called Project Clean Air, and they have a 
target of so many hundred cars per year, and they've been paying 
an average of $500 a car. 

Frankly, Senator, I don't think it's that all 
effective of a program. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How does it work financially? Do 


they strip the cars and sell the parts and make a profit? 

MR. VAGIM: Well, that's one of the questions I want 
to ask, because I know a couple guys in the junk business. And 
some of the guys who are bringing cars into them make a lot of 
money off of that because they get parts, and then they resell 
the parts, and they multiply more than what they sold them — or 
what they bought them for. 

I believe that we need to audit that very carefully, 
because I think some guys could be making a windfall out of 
that, and we don't know it. And that's one of the new programs, 
when we were rushed to clean up air, that we rush into, and 
somebody gets a big windfall profit up front, and then it dawns 
on us: we should have modified this going in so someone 
wouldn't make windfall profits, and at the same time not really 
doing effective air emission or air pollution reduction. 

So, I think we need to take a closer look at that and 
find out exactly how much money is being made by the folk who 
are selling them; in addition, how much is being made of that 
after market for a guy who crushes the car. 

The theory is, get an old vehicle off the road, you 
save a certain amount of emissions. Get a whole bunch of 
vehicles off the road, you even save more emissions. 

My problem socially is, as a Supervisor, is that I 
got folk who can't afford to go buy an '84 or newer car. But 
the functionality of that older car works just fine for them. 
It gets them to work; it gets their kids to school; it gets them 
in the store to buy their groceries . 

Now, if you're going to say to them, "You're evil for 


driving that older car, and you've got to go spend $4,000 more 
to go buy a new car, " when you could barely afford the one 
you're in, and we're going to give them $500 for that older car, 
what's next? Are we going to give them a thousand? Give them 
2,000? Give them 3,000? And where are we going to get that 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's a good question, but I think 
we have to go back to the basic reason for it. 

It ' s tough on them to rearrange their lives in order 
to get transportation, and that's a cost of being poor, I 
guess. We dump on the poor all the time anyway. 

But in the meantime, they're poisoning the rest of 
us. That's the bottom line. The bottom line is poison coming 
out of those vehicles. A lot of old people dying because of air 
pollution. That's still going on. It aggravates heart disease. 
Medical journals are full of articles over the years, you know, 
on the impact on health. 

It seems to me every time a vehicle is taken off the 
road, that's a big victory. 

MR. VAGIM: Well, there's no doubt about it, that 
it's a very important part of the plan. But to make it part of 
the mandate, to make it part of your solution, your absolute 
solution, I think, can have — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Create other problems. 

MR . CALHOUN : Create other problems . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Suppose we solved that part of the 
problem, and the 75,000 — I don't know how they arrived at this 
number, but let's say that the number they picked is actually 


removed . 

How much of an impact would that have on air 

MR. VAGIM: Well, it is supposed — I forget the 
actual numbers, Senator, but individually, of course, when you 
have VOCs and you have NO , and of course you have a better 
emission system on evaporative, where the car's just standing, 
and et cetera, it adds up to micro grams per car per day. 

But if you take it across the spectrum, you're 
getting into tons per day of reduction. Frankly, I don't know 
if it was 10 tons or 20 tons across the spectrum on the VOCs and 
NO , and et cetera, but it's in that range. 


Technological changes can actually improve that even 
greater if we push technological issues. CARB has specialized, 
and one of the areas that I have watched and learned to much 
what I would consider pleasure is to see CARB ' s hands on on 
technological review to force industry, to challenge industry, 
to come forward with technological changes for the California 
marketplace. And it's worked. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are you talking about new cars? 

MR. VAGIM: New cars, mainly new cars. 

One of the issues that we're concerned about as a 
Board is how do we maybe do things like retrofit and start 
giving credit for retrofit, because, you know, you can immediate 
emission reductions on retrofits if you offer them at a price 
where people will want to do it. There's a lot of folk out 
there who have old cars who can't afford and will maybe do some 
retrofitting if it was effective and cost effective. 


SENATOR PETRIS: I think we need education, too. 
Most people don't realize that an idling car does more polluting 
than a moving car. 

MR. VAGIM: That's right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And we've all been behind a guy in 
the right lane, right at the intersection, who doesn't make a 
right turn on a red because he doesn't know that it pollutes you 
worse, and he doesn't know that you have a right to make a right 
turn when there's no traffic coming that way. 

That ' s a very big source of the idling cars . It 
isn't just stopping in the inner lane, waiting for the fellow 
way up there in front. It's the one in front on the right side 
that causes the problem. 

Maybe we ought to get hold of DMV, put that in the 

MR. VAGIM: Out of turn. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We have to try it on all fronts. 

MR. VAGIM: That's right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now, would you agree with Mr. 
Calhoun that the feds will approve the SIP? 

MR. VAGIM: I think the State SIP, State 
Implementation Plan to meet the federal Clean Air Act, I think 
California's State Implementation Plan, being the only state 
that met the timetable, which I think we all should be proud of, 
has sufficient implementable rules, and also goals that we set 
out in our plan, to achieve clean air to meet the federal 
standard, and that was what that plan did. 

It didn't meet the state standard, and remember, the 


state does not have a deadline on any particular date to meet 
its standards, but it met the fed standard, in a way that I 
think will address those who have the worst problems first with 
the plan basically having to plan ahead to meet them by 2010, 
which is really where South Coast is. And the rest of us, we're 
a serious valley, 1997 is what we will have to meet to meet 
attainment. Sacramento had to shift theirs to what's called an 
extreme because they couldn ' t make their goals . 

We feel that we have our hands on to meet the federal 
attainment . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I assume that your engineers, having 
developed the plan on a technological basis, would assure you 
that, yes, this meets federal standards. 

But there are people who don ' t want us to meet 
federal standards . They ' re inviting a takeover by the feds . 
There are people who'd much rather have us go in that direction. 

MR. VAGIM: Well, based on what the Federal 
Implementation Plan looked like, I don't think anybody would 
want the federal government to take us over, because that was a 
pretty hellacious plan. 

And we showed that we could put a plan together that 
met the federal standards, federal attainment levels, without 
doing the things that the feds had in their Federal 
Implementation Plan. 

Remember, the whole — I believe the whole SIP in 
California, anyway, was driven by the South Coast model, because 
we had the worst problem in the South Coast. So, we had to go 
address South Coast, and some issues spilled over to the rest of 



The automobile program, the low emission vehicle 
program, even though it's a benefit to all of us, really 
addressed the need to get Southern California's South Coast 
Basin under those levels to meet federal standards. We had to 
take some radical steps there to do that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: If you tackle the worst district, 
it'll be good for all the rest. 

MR. VAGIM: That's correct. 



SENATOR LEWIS: Back on the clunker question for a 
second, have you ever had a chance to review the success or lack 
thereof of the Unical Oil scrap program in the South Coast 

MR. VAGIM: Well, I've heard of the program. They've 
come and testified at CARB on the success of their program. And 
San Diego has, evidently, a very successful program also. 

That is a willing party type of a venue where the 
industry itself sponsored that. And that is fine. It is a very 
important tool to me. 

My concern is, when we as regulatory folk and those 
who want to see that program even pushed harder, go to the 
Legislature and start mandating it, there are social 
consequences that I see, that the folk who cannot afford these 
newer cars are going to be levered out of cars and 
transportation. And I think we need to concerns ourselves with 
that before we start driving the marketplace on cars that are 


going to the bone pile anyway. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I understand your concern. 

Are you familiar with the Reg. 15, mandatory ride 
sharing program they have in the South Coast District? 

MR. VAGIM: No, I'm sorry. Reg. 15? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Reg. 15. That's the mandatory ride 
sharing, or it's to increase the vehicle ridership. 

MR. VAGIM: Right. Well, we all have that in our 
plans . We have to reach 1 . 5 average per rush hour by the year 
1999, and we're all on track with that. 

Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of the — 
particularly Valley communities, are ready for it because we 
haven't been urbanized enough to have mass transit. But it's 
something that we need to work on, and we've been preaching up 
and down the Valley: we've got to get our act together to be 
able to meet that particular threshold. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Would you be surprised if I told you 
that in comparing the Unical scrap program to the South Coast 
Reg. 15 program, that the scrap program was 30 times as cost 
effective in terms of reducing pollutants per dollar spent? 

MR. VAGIM: Is that on actual ridership on the 
transportation plan? 


MR. VAGIM: Not actuarially, but actual. I believe 
that, because I spoke — 

SENATOR LEWIS: That's using the South Coast Air 
Quality Management District's own figures in analyzing the 
success of their Reg. 15 program. 


MR. VAGIM: Were they a success, right, which is the 
actual . 

Look, folk in California, at least in most of 
California — there are spots in the Bay Area and et cetera that 
have now long since adopted for mass transit — and we need to 
start getting better understanding of what makes the rest of 
California start being attracted to that. 

When Southern California had its earthquake, it did 
use the trains. When the roads were fixed, they got off the 
trains . 

We need to figure out what attracts people to those 
systems, and also what attracts people to ride sharing. Ride 
sharing is troubling to some, because it's not ride sharing 
itself, it's who you share the ride with. And some folks, you 
know, have their own group of folks that they want to, and it 
doesn't work out sometimes, so they end up all taking their own 
cars . 

We have what I consider to be a fairly aggressive 
transportation plan in the Valley that is going to sit down with 
industries with 100 or more and get them into a plan that 
addresses the transportation mitigation plan. And we want to 
see that ridership increased. 

Calif ornians have a love affair with their cars. I 
don't think anyone will doubt that. 

But I think we need some incentives to get our bus 
systems from giving folk who don't have cars a ride, to in 
addition to give those who have a car an option to use the bus . 

Right now, the system is levered under federal law to 


give those who don't have rides a bus to use. We need people 
who have options to take a car, an attraction to use the bus. 

Right now, that isn't being done in most communities 
in California. 

So, those are some of the issues that need to be 
addressed by all of us. The Legislature needs to be at this to 
help us, as regulatory folk. We'll give you the plans, but we 
need some help on getting folk to help understand what they need 
to do to implement this . 

SENATOR LEWIS: If the Reg. 15 in the South Coast 
District is costing the private sector several hundred million 
dollars a year to comply with, and if the scrap program is 30 
times as cost effective, wouldn't that suggest that it might be 
more effective to offer businesses the ability to participate in 
the scrap program, in lieu of these mandates that aren't 

MR. VAGIM: And the way it works, the way I 
understand in the South Coast, those are industry-generated 
funds that are bringing down what — off of every scrapped car, 
a level of emission, and they're being able to take credit for 
that, for their own industry. And that's a market-driven 
incentive for that particular industry. 

My concern is that California has a total populace. 
Forcing that as a mandate, we begin now, as regulatory folk, to 
start discussing social issues, particularly those who can 
afford it the least. And that's something we've got to be very 
careful as we address this. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What were the principle defects in 


the FIP that you think were corrected by the SIP? 

MR. VAGIM: Well, I think what I was trying to get 
into detail that I can't — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Just in concept. 

MR. VAGIM: There were some proposed regulations in 
the FIP that were almost undoable. They created an environment 
of cost that was estimated by the consultants that CARB hired to 
do a review, somewhere on the order of billions of dollars more 
in solving the same problem that our SIP now accomplishes. 

And we feel it is adoptable and doable to meet the 
federal standards . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any specific — 

MR. VAGIM: Any specific measure? Yeah, one of the 
measures that they put in the FIP plan is a no drive day. In 
other words, you got a car, you've got to park it. No matter if 
you got to go to the market or the doctor, I guess you've got to 
get permission from your air regulator to use that car, or 
something. I don't how they ever planned to use it, but that's 
one of the issues. 


MR. VAGIM: That's the one that stands out. 

I think there were some other what I would consider 
to be personal home issues, such as consumer marketplace. For 
example, consumer products, they were talking about wiping them 
off the face of the earth. Not have to go to hair spray in the 
last ten days. Those folks said they'd be spraying water to 
meet the federal standards . 

Now, we put a plan out there that they don't like 


either in our SIP that they say they can't meet. Well, we said 
you've got enough time — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who's the "they"? 

MR. VAGIM: The consumer product folk, which means 
that they have to reduce their VOCs by 85 percent of what they 
are today. They said they will be spraying water if you make 
them reduce it by 85 percent. 

We said, look, you've got a threshold to meet that 
you're going to go down 30 percent in the next three or four 
years, which they've accepted, and have another tier which 
they're willing to and they've accept. Now the last one is the 
one that they fall out of the chair on. 

We said that you have to — CARB said you have 
sufficient time to meet this test. We've got to push you. 
We've got to keep pushing you. If you don't — maybe there's 
some upstart genius out there in the university, or some old 
salt out at one of those aerospace guys that can come out and 
say, "I can do this." How do you know that unless you push it? 

And I think what we can pride ourselves in what CARB 
has done over these years . 


You're willing to accept that responsibility to be 
kind of the official nudger? 

MR. VAGIM: Absolutely. I think it's one of the 
roles that CARB should have. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we 
should abandon the park your car idea. It's been used in other 
places, and it'll be a big boost to public transit. 


If public transit knows X percent of the population's 
not going to be driving today, they're going to provide more 
buses and trains, and so forth. 

I know in Athens, Greece, which is a very bad 
polluted city, they go by the license plate number, and you 
drive on alternate days. Of course, those who have the money 
get another plate for another car, but that's a limited number, 
you know. They can't all go out and buy another car for an even 
number as opposed to an odd. 

And in Rome, they drew a circle around the city, and 
they made you park outside the circle and take some other means 
to get the rest of the way into town for your shopping or your 
work. that seemed to work out pretty well. 

So, there are, you know, other alternatives that we 
really ought to be pursuing, even if it means doing what you 
said, and that is, keep pushing, and pushing, and pushing, and 
sooner or later, the conduct will change and we'll make more 
progress . 

MR. VAGIM: If the goal is to get folk into mass 
transportation, I believe we need to achieve that. If we get 
folk out of cars, because even electric vehicles are not going 
to solve your traffic congestion. If you have a lot of ZEVs 
running around, they're still crowded and doing funny turns, 
you're still going to cause congestion. 

We need to figure out what attracts folk to the 
transportation systems of California and start working on those. 

I'm the Chairman of the San Joaquin Valley Rail 
Steering Committee, which is a 12-county consortium from L.A. 


County, to Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Francisco, and all 8 
counties in between. We have been batting ourselves over the 
head, trying to figure out why CalTrans doesn't understand that 
a two-rail line between the Valley and Sacramento is going to 
increase a lot more ridership and get people out of their cars. 
But they have been spending about five or six years, doing 
study, after study, after study. 

But that is a conjunctive thing with air quality. 
They go hand in hand. 

SENATOR PETRIS: They're too busy trying to rid of 
the BCDC. That's a local thing. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, just to interpose, safe, 
clean convenient, and reliable service, and people will use it. 
None of the transit systems are adequate by those tests. 

MR. VAGIM: I agree. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There was some anxiety expressed 
with respect to the SIP and port impacts that seemed to be 
severe and unnecessary. 

Do you happen to recall whether those constraints 
were relaxed or improved with the SIP? 

MR. VAGIM: Under the SIP, we are, I believe, of 
mind to allow South Coast and particularly Ventura County to 
move the channel , move the shipping lanes so they didn ' t come in 
so close to the shore, and that solved a lot of the problems. 

The feds wanted to crank down on doing a whole more 
onerous way. So, we were able to address that in the SIP. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there other questions? 


Is there anyone present who would wish to comment? I 
note Assemblyman-Senate-Justice-Mister Zenovich, who had 
indicated support, so you don't need to do more than that. 

MR. ZENOVICH: May I approach the bench, your Honor? 

I just want to state that I've known Supervisor Vagim 
for a long time. I have a letter of support in the record. 

He was very much involved under the McCorquodale- 
Costa legislation, in forming the district in the Central Valley 
in the formative stages, and I think he knows enough about it to 
do an adequate job on the ARB. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Nice to know you're adequate. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Especially when your friends 
describe you that way. 

Do we have a motion by anyone present? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Beverly moves 
confirmation . 

Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 


SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 
MR. VAGIM: Thank you very much. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Keep up the good work. 
If there's no objection, I'd like to add myself as an 
aye to Mr. Parnell so there's no miscues on the Floor and report 
it as five to zero. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
5:42 P.M. ] 

— 00O00 — 


I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

,j IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this CX / day of January, 1995. 

Shorthanci Reporter 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.25 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 269-R when ordering. 


no. (* 





ROOM 113 


3:05 RM. 


MAR 3 1995 





ROOM 113 

MONDAY, JANUARY 30 , 1995 
3:05 P.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 


Youthful Offender Parole Board 

Industrial Welfare Commission 


Board of Prison Terms 

Board of Prison Terms 

Youthful Offender Parole Board 



Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 


Department of Rehabilitation 1 

Statement of Intent by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER 1 

Motion to Confirm 1 

Committee Action 1 


Youthful Offender Parole Board 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Toughest Decision while Serving on Board 2 

Coping with Changes in Type of Wards 3 

Decisions Made at Early Stage of 

Ward's Incarceration 4 

Initial Determinations 5 

Predictions 6 

Any Particular Needs in Terms of 

Available Treatment or Training Programs 7 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Overcrowding and Decision Making 9 

Criteria Used in Making Decision to Release ... 10 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Handling Overcrowded Conditions at 

Youth Authority 11 

Early Release of Inmates 11 

How is Department Handling Problems of 

Overcrowding . 12 

Department's Plans for More Institutions ..... 14 


INDEX (Continued) 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Indeterminate Sentencing System Possibly 

resulting in Racially Biased Determinations ... 15 

Process Used to Determine Parole 

Consideration Date 17 

Adoption of Possible Parole Date 18 

Annual Review Process 18 

Changes in Original Parole Dates 19 

Motion to Confirm 22 

Committee Action 22 


Industrial Welfare Commission 23 

Background and Experience 23 

Introduction and Support by SENATOR JIM COSTA 25 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Position on Minimum Wage 26 

Voted No on Reviewing Minimum Wage Issue 27 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Farming Background 28 

Difficulty in Understanding Employees ' 

Viewpoint 29 

Possibility of Deadlock on Minimum Wage 

Issue 30 

Issue of 10-hour and 12-hour Workday 31 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: Orders Need 

to Reflect Better Voting Process on Workday Hours ... 33 

Motion to Confirm 34 

Committee Action 34 


INDEX (Continued) 


Board of Prison Terms 34 

Background and Experience 35 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Feelings about Current Assignment 35 

Toughest Tasks or Decisions 35 

Considerations on Difficult Decisions 36 

Guidelines for Informed Decisions on 

Possibility of Re-offending 37 

Recommendations on Sentencing Policies or 

Prison Programs 37 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Main Factors Used in Determining Suitability 

for Parole 38 

Case of Sirhan Sirhan 39 

Frequency of Review Process 40 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Sentencing in Rape Cases 41 

Personal Loss Due to Criminal Activity 41 

Ability to be Objective on Board 42 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Parole Reviews by Governor 43 

Number of Parole Reversals 44 

Heavy Law Enforcement Representation on 

Board 44 

Effect of Public Sentiment on Board's 

Decisions 46 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Allegation of Lobbying Efforts by Spouse 48 


INDEX f Continued ^ 

Motion to Confirm 48 

Committee Action 49 

Statements by SENATOR JIM NIELSEN re: Sirhan Sirhan . . 49 


Youthful Offender Parole Board 50 

Background and Experience 50 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Career in Employment Area 51 

Observations to Improve Employment 

Opportunities for Wards 51 

Motion to Confirm 53 

Committee Action 53 

Termination of Proceedings 54 

Certificate of Reporter 55 

— 00O00-- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Number three is Brenda Premo, the 
Director of the Department of Rehabilitation. 

Since it was vote only, I suggested to her that it 
was unnecessary to make an appearance today. I think probably 
other Members of the Committee have been visited by her, as have 
I , and I ' m persuaded that the appropriate balance between 
sensitivity to the person who appoints her and her 
responsibilities as an advocate for clients exists. 

Having been persuaded of that, any reluctance that I 
had at the previous meeting to vote for confirmation is 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move her recommendation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any other comments, questions? 
Are you ready to vote on the matter? 

We have a motion by Senator Beverly; call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 


SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: On the new calendar, our first 
appointee is Alfredo Bautista, from the Youthful Offender Parole 

MR. BAUTISTA: Good afternoon, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It looks like you might start with 
a little introductory comment, if you would. 

MR. BAUTISTA: Well, sir, I really don't. I have 
just notes, anticipating questions that you might have of me, 
and would be at your pleasure at this time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You have served now for about 
three-fourths of a year on this Board. 

What was the toughest decision you've had to make so 

MR. BAUTISTA: Well, I guess the toughest decision, 
Senator, would probably be the what I see as the increase in the 
rise of types of crimes we're getting into the Y.A. and that are 
appearing before the Board. 

I look at this, first of all, from the standpoint of 
somebody who wants to serve the general public, but also as a 
father of four youngsters who are — possibly could be in the 
same age bracket as these individuals committed to the Y.A. 

And it is tough on me when I see, appearing before 
me, young people, young wards, who have gotten into the state 
that they're in in terms of committing crimes. And for me to 
look at that and to say, gee, I have to make decisions as to 
whether or not I would lock them up. We direct programs for 

I think that the fact that they have, at a very young 

age, lost their freedom has been very tough for me. I think 
that is probably, in a nut shell, the toughest decision I've had 
to make, is how do you make decisions as to the status of these 
very young offenders. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I just note that this is your 
fifth year. 

MR. BAUTISTA: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're one of the old timers. 

How are you coping with the changes in the type of 
person you see before you? What does that make you do? 

MR. BAUTISTA: Well, again, Senator, as I stated in 
my initial comments here, I look at my position here as one of 
someone who's serving the general public and citizens of 
California, but also one as a citizen with children. 

And, you know, like I said, it's very tough to sit on 
the other side of the table, knowing that you have individuals, 
young individuals, who have committed very serious crimes, or 
who have committed crimes, and we are making decisions as to 
their future. 

And I think I'm coping relatively well. In the four 
or five years that I've been on the Board, I think I bring to 
the Board a sense of balance. I bring to the Board a 
perspective of a reasonable person. I'm not one prone to flying 
off the handle. I am one, as you can see from my background, 
who has an analytical background. 

In terms of my education, I've been in institutions 
and agencies, organizations, that require discipline. You know, 
understanding direction is very important. 

So, I think that if you use the word "coping", how am 
I coping, I think I'm doing relatively well. 

Again, for anybody who sits on that side of the 
table, making decisions, to see how young and younger they're 
getting, really, being a parent, being somebody who's concerned 
about youth, it does have its times. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Now, you see them early, right 
after commitment? 

MR. BAUTISTA: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What sorts of decisions are you 
making at that early phase? 

MR. BAUTISTA: Well, as you're all aware, the whole 
issue of juvenile justice deals with the issue of treatment and 
training. Juvenile justice, as I see it, is one where we 
believe that the young person is still salvageable, despite the 
fact that they're committed very serious crimes. In the wisdom 
and the judgment of the courts, this person, you know, is 
perceived in the future, if he or she goes through the 
appropriate treatment and training, can be returned back to the 

I feel that the decision — am I moving in the right 
direction, Senator? 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think that, you know, the whole 
area of juvenile justice, as you can see, you know, when I came 
in five years ago, I did not come in with a background of law 
enforcement or juvenile justice. I came from a background 
initially of working at the University of California. 

I worked very — I was very active in the community; 
I was very active working with community-based organizations. I 
have a speciality working with the Asian-American community, 
most particularly the Filipino community, so I have a 

I come in with a very perspective understanding that 
there are many things that affect people and behavior. And I 
try to apply that, I think to the decisions I make. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have a sense of all the 
initial determinations that are made when you first decide what 
appropriate handling of each individual might result, what's the 
debate? What do you sometimes do or not do, depending on the 
specifics of the case? 

MR. BAUTISTA: Well, one of the issues that we look 
at, first of all, or that I look is, is that the very fact that 
this young man, or this young girl, has been committed to the 
Youth Authority because he or she has committed a very serious 

What we are looking at, hopefully, in the future is, 
what sort of resources do we have available to us, given the 
fact that he or she is committed, that would make this person 
treatable, salvageable? I think that's the word that a lot of 
people are using. 

And, you know, the very fact — and I will say this 
now, that I have — in the four and a half years that I've been 
on the Board, worked with very, very professional individuals in 
the Y.A. who have that in mind, who do have a sense that, yeah, 
let's do the best we can; give it what we have in terms of 

budgetary constraints, resources, to try and treat this 
individual, train this individual, so that he or she, when the 
appropriate time is made available to us, we can make decision 
to not return the person to the community or return the person. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you feel like you've gotten to 
be pretty good at predicting? When you see them on the way in 
and make determinations about the appropriate treatment or 
training, do you see some of the same people on the way out or 
being considered for release? 

MR. BAUTISTA: You know, Senator, that's a very good 
question, because I don't like to use that word, predictable, 
because, that's not what the Y.A. and juvenile justice is all 
about . 

You get individuals who, for whatever reason, are 
committed to the Y.A., and to say that there is a crystal ball 
that says that we can predict one way or the other, I don't like 
to look at that. 

I think, you know, the whole concept of the Y.A., of 
the Youth Authority and commitment to the state, is that, you 
know, we look at the individual as an individual. We look at 
available resources that treats the crime that he or she 
committed, and then, given the statutory regulations in terms of 
how long we keep this individual, we make the decision further 
on the line. 

But I don't like to say, yeah, we see an individual 
that commits this crime. There's a stereotype there. I don't 
think that ' s what I do . 

I kind of — my style of assessment is to look at, 

given what's available, look at the individual and to make 
decisions as to where he or she's behavior is at, where he or 
she is at in terms of the level of progress in terms of 
treatment or training. 

So, I don't think that there is a crystal ball. 
There isn't a factor of predictability, if you may, because 
there are many things that are involved in that . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there something that you wish 
you could do more of; that is, some particular training 
environment or other approach that maybe you don ' t get to do it 
because of budgetary constraint, or physical location, or 
whatever it might be? Do you have that feeling with any 

MR. BAUTISTA: Yes, Senator. If I can make a comment 
on that, you know, one of the things — and I use the fact that 
as a father of four, you know, you kind of — the question that 
begs to be asked here is, you know, why are these individuals, 
why are these youngsters in the situation they're in right now? 

And what I would like to see, and I think it's borne 
out by the Little Hoover Commission report, is the lack or a 
failure in terms of certain institutions we have, more 
particularly the family, schools, that aren't catching or 
nipping it in the bud. And if I had, you know, anything to 
comment to provide input into those policy makers that would do 
that, it would be to say: hey, let's look at what we need to do 
to nip it in the bud. 

I think there ' s been a failure in terms of the value 
systems. I think that there hasn't been a sense of 


accountability that maybe could be there. For whatever reason, 
you know, given we are a changing society, we are — there are 
many dynamics that affect why there has been a failure in the 
family, why there has been a failure in schools. 

So, if anything, I think that for me to say, gee 
whiz, I really would like to see more direction being made to 
address the initial reasons why that person has been — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Fair comment. 

Now, once you're within your own system, so the 
preventive opportunities are past for that individual that ' s 
sitting before you, are there things that you would wish to do 
within the CYA system that you feel like there ' s not enough 
opportunity to do? That is, any training program, any teaching, 
therapy, whatever, something that you feel like you've 
programmed them a particular way, but you wish you could do more 
of X. 

Do you get that feeling at all? 

MR. BAUTISTA: Well, Senator, I think that given the 
state of our society in the State of California, the very fact 
we are moved by budgetary constraints, there are certain things 
that I would like to see more of. And I think it all involves, 
you know, the issue of treatment, the issue of sex offenders, as 
we've seen a rise in the number of sex offenses that are 
committed by youngsters . I think that we need more treatment 
resources that addresses that. 

You know, having come four and a half years ago from 
the general community, like I said, the Youth Authority's 
probably one of the best kept secrets in the State of 

California. But never in my four and a half years have I had, 
you know, the negative opportunity, if you may, to deal with 
somebody that wasn't professional. I think that the Y.A. is 
doing everything within their power to try their best to treat 
individuals . 

Plus, there are issues that relate, because of the 
lack of money, that would require — that would say, hey, we 
need, given the rise in, say, sex offenders, the rise in the 
drug offenses, that maybe we need more programs to address that 

And I think we are doing that. As you're probably 
aware, there are some options and alternatives that are being 
now promoted within the Youth Authority system that say, hey, 
instead of just a straight lockup, here's what we're doing. 
And, you know, we're doing that, I think. 

And as a Board, we are working very closely with the 
Y.A. to try and get as much — to be as efficient as possible. 


Senator Lewis . 

SENATOR LEWIS: How much of a factor, if any, is the 
problem of overcrowding in the Y.A. in terms of your decision 

MR. BAUTISTA: You know, Senator, I would not be the 
person that could really address that in a very efficient 
manner . 

I think what we do is, if I can understand your 
question, we get a lot of individuals that, because of the 
number and because of the lack of resources, that may not be 
able to get into certain treatment programs . 


But I don't think that I can — maybe if I can ask 
you to reclarify your question for me. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Well, perhaps if it came down to 
letting someone out early versus someone else, what kind of 
criteria might you choose, what might you be looking at? 

MR. BAUTISTA: Well, I would look at the seriousness 
of the commitment offense. I think that we, as I indicated in 
my initial statement, that we are starting to see a number of 
individuals that come in with very violent offenses. And I 
think if I was involved in the discussion where that was the 
case, we would have to look at, you know, the public safety 

As we're all aware, we're all very aware of the 
public safety. And if push came to shove, you know, whether — 
and I don't think that has ever been the case. I don't think 
I've ever been involved in a situation where we've had to make a 
decision. I'm not at that level to say this guy goes, or this 
person goes, or not. 

I think what we look at is, you know, the commitment 
offense by the courts to us. There are many factors involved. 
What is the public safety issue. Has this person been involved 
in treatment and training that addresses that very commitment 

I think that ' s the exercise that I think that we all 
go through on the Board, to assess whether or not, you know, if 
overcrowding in the issue, I don't think that's ever been an 
issue presented to the Board in that respect. 

SENATOR LEWIS: But if it became an issue, I take it 


from your answer that the nature of the crime, whether it's 
violent or not, would be something — 

MR. BAUTISTA: Yes, sir, and whether or not that 
person has been involved in treatment programs and training 
programs to address that. 


SENATOR AYALA: Dr. Bautista, we have the capacity to 
house some 5,850 wards, but we have some 9,000 youngsters or 
young people incarcerated, which is 200 percent more than you 
have the capacity for. 

How do you handle that? How do you take care of the 
overcrowded conditions in the Youth Authority? 

MR. BAUTISTA: Well, I think, sir, again, this is my 
personal assessment, what we're looking at is, you know, I see 
the Youth Authority as the last resort in terms of how we deal 
with young people who commit crimes . 

I think what we need to look at are alternative 
programs that may deal with addressing it at the county of 
commitment . 

SENATOR AYALA: That's prior to being incarcerated. 

MR. BAUTISTA: That's right. 

SENATOR AYALA: How are you handling today's 
overcrowded conditions? Are you releasing wards that are less 
risky kids to go back in society? 

You're not keeping them; you're releasing them, are 
you not, some of them, before their time is up? 

MR. BAUTISTA: I don't think that's the case, sir. I 
think that if you understand the guidelines that we operate, 


which are statutory, obviously, you know, there are seven 
categories of which certain crimes are placed. And given the 
severity of the crime, that's the length of time. 

For example, a murder case, there are seven years 
involved in terms of treatment and training. 

I don't think that, in my opinion, looking at what we 
have, we are releasing them, you know — 

SENATOR AYALA: Any sooner than they would normally? 

MR. BAUTISTA: I don't think that is the case at all. 

SENATOR AYALA: What are you doing with them? Are 
you putting three of them in a cell, or how do you handle that 
overcrowded condition? 

MR. BAUTISTA: Well, I think, sir, again, that would 
not be — because we deal with the treatment-training side of 
it, I think that would be a question more appropriate toward the 
Youth Authority and their administrative staff in terms of how 
they deal with the budgetary stuff, because that's what, you 
know, that's the whole issue. It becomes a question of, well, 
if you've got overcrowding, what are the resources available to 
you fiscally to deal with that. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm asking you, how are you doing 
that? How are you managing to take these additional 3,000 
wards , where do you put them? What do you do with them? Under 
normal conditions, do you just release when their time is up. 

MR. BAUTISTA: No, no, I don't think that's the case, 

I think what we're looking at, we're seeing a lot of 
double bunking; we're seeing a lot of trying to evaluate the 


structure, the housing aspect. 

And clearly, you're correct. What we have — if what 
the Y.A. has said, that they could only house 5,000 or so, and 
we've got 9,000, clearly we've got to do what we've got to do, 
in terms of double bunking, you know, using resources that are 
available to them that may provide housing and what-have you. 

But in terms of, you know, whether or not we're 
releasing them sooner than we should, I don't think that's the 

I think that what we've got in terms of the Board is, 
and our policy is that we look at the public safety issue. We 
look at, given the resources available to us, how much treatment 
and training can we give these individual to assure us that we 
are not releasing them — 

SENATOR AYALA: But you're not running into any 
problems, per se, because of the additional young people you 
have incarcerated in terms of being able to house them, and feed 
them, and exercise them, and work them? You don't have that 
problem today, even though it's almost twice as many wards in 
these facilities than they were designed for? 

MR. BAUTISTA: Clearly, Senator, I agree with you, 

But, you know, again, we are in our state, you know, 
we are motivated by what we have in terms of finances . And it ' s 
tough; those are very tough decisions. 

But I think that what we've got to do, not that these 
can be handled now, is look at how do we solve those problems 
now? How do we deal with those? 


I think one of the very issues that I've been very- 
much involved with is the whole issue of nonviolent offenders 
and people who commit crimes related to drug offenses. And the 
question is, are these individuals really, you know — could 
they really benefit from going into the Y.A. for long period of 
time for high-priced treatment? 

One of the things that we may want to look at, like I 
said before, is why not look at it from the standpoint of the 
county court of commitment, juvenile detention, diversion 
programs, at the city-county level. I think that's the only way 
you ' re going to do that . 

SENATOR AYALA: You have a Youth Authority in Chino. 


SENATOR AYALA: And you have one in Ventura County, 
and one in lone? 


SENATOR AYALA: Are there any others, the one around 

MR. BAUTISTA: You've got a very — you've got a very 
large complex there . 

SENATOR AYALA: Is there another facility in the 
pipeline to take care of the overflow of these wards? 

MR. BAUTISTA: As you're probably aware, Senator, a 
few years ago the Chaderjian Institution in Stockton was 
expanded to house more mature wards . 

And I think that there are plans. I've not been 
privy to exactly the planning aspect of housing in Y.A., but I 
would assume that that ' d be the case, given our continued rise 


in — 

SENATOR AYALA: But up to now, that has not been a 
problem to you folks? 

MR. BAUTISTA: I don't see that as a problem. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: One last thing from me. 

The treatment of wards is more like the old policy 
before the state shifted from indeterminate to determinate 
sentencing. That is, it's basically an indeterminate sentence 
universe . 

I ' d be interested in your observations and 
reflections as they relate to that original debate; that is, it 
was argued that under indeterminate sentencing, there were too 
many disparate results, that minority offenders might get a 
longer sentence than Anglo offenders, and so on, depending on 
the circumstance. There was a view that there was too much 
potential for racial bias in decisions that were made. 

There was also an interesting argument, if I recall, 
about the relationship of the correctional officers in the 
facility in either a determinate or indeterminate setting, and 
whether their control of inmate behavior would be helped or 
hindered by either system. 

I'd like to kind of contemporize, that is, to get 
your reactions to the claim that an indeterminate system might 
result in racially biased determinations. Do you any reason to 
think that that ' s in fact what ' s happened with respect to 
treatment of youthful offenders? 

MR. BAUTISTA: Personally, Senator, I don't think 


that's the case. I think, you know, the whole issue of juvenile 
justice and the Youth Authority is moved on two points. One, 
individual assessment, and one on a case by case basis. 

I think that given my colleagues on the Board, and 
civil servants who are also hearing officers, I don't think that 
that issue was ever brought up, about race, you know, somebody's 
who from a different ethnic community getting more time. 

Let me say in terms of my four and a half years that 
I've been on the Board, I have been quite involved in the Asian 
Forum. One of the whole purposes of the Asian Forum is to deal 
with issues related to that as it affects Asians and Asian 

And clearly, as one who comes from a community-based 
perspective, I'm very cognizant of that and would be the first 
to say, hey, there's a problem here in terms of decision making, 
in terms of length of time. 

But I don't think that has been the case. I think 
that there are some problems, as we see now, given the changing 
society, some cultural issues that may need to be addressed as 
we see the rise in Asian wards that come in, and the fact that, 
you know, there are certain psychological treatment programs 
that may need to be re- looked at. 

But I don't think that in terms of sanctions against 
them, there has been any deliberate, there has been any willful, 
you know, thing to say, yeah, because somebody — a person comes 
from a certain particular ethnic community, that we are going to 
come down a littler harder, or we are going to tailor treatment 
programs a little bit more harsh. I don't think that's the 



Like I said, I have — and I'm speaking about the 
Youth Authority in general, and most particularly about our 
Board. I think that we come across as being very reasonable in 
terms of our assessment. There hasn't — we come across as 
looking at what we have before us. And given our guidelines, 
that's what we base our decision on. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When a PCD, parole consideration 
date, gets set, how is the initial determination made to set a 
date for your review? Does that come from the individual 
institution and staff that have a ward in that, or what's the 

MR. BAUTISTA: Yes, sir. That is generally the case. 

What we have when we receive the ward at the initial 
hearing, that person has been committed for a particular crime. 
And we are — we look at what crime has been committed, and the 
judge and the courts in their wisdom give them a period of time 
that we can — with which we can treat and train them. 

After they go through that particular process, they 
go through a screening process at what we call our clinic, 
working with individuals who are psychiatrists, licensed 
clinical social workers, mental health providers, probation 
reports. They look at all that, and they provide to us 
recommendations . 


MR. BAUTISTA: Well, in terms of — before we make 
the decision on a PCD, then given, you know, the statutory 
regulations as to what we can do for a particular category 


crime, we factor that in in terms of our decision. 

We look at behavior. We look at amenability to 
treatment. We look at, you know, where this person is at in 
terms of family. You know, we look at, you know, prior history, 
you know, delinquent criminal behavior. And that's all factored 

And you know, we are — we operate, and we determine 
those decisions, given our guidelines and those other issues. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you adopt a possible parole 
date, then, early on in this process, or is that derived later 
on, after they have been in the program for a while? 

MR. BAUTISTA: There are regulations we have given 
certain categories of crime, but in terms of do we do that with 
an individual, no. 

What happens, Senator, is that when the ward comes 
before us in the initial hearing, that's it. The file — we 
have an opportunity to review the file there. There is no 
unilateral taking of the files out to review, or — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you establish a parole date 

MR. BAUTISTA: Yes, yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: At that initial sort of screening, 
so to speak? 

MR. BAUTISTA: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And then they'll be back. Do they 
have to come back? Well, you have an annual review, I guess. 

MR. BAUTISTA: Yes, sir. By law, as you're aware, 
they are required to appear before the Board annually, and for 


us to assess whether or not that person has been amenable to 
treatment and training. And that's when those decisions are 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, if the officers at a 
particular institution, or the director, or whomever, had an 
opinion that the person hadn't performed well during, let's say, 
the previous year, is that when they would come and recommend to 
you a delay in the possible date? 

MR. BAUTISTA: Yes, sir. 

What we receive on the annual reports is a very 
complete assessment of progress and program. I think that at 
that time is when we modify the parole consideration date, 
either given — we get a lot of individuals who do very, very 
well. And they have a process within the system already that 
says, hey, here are benchmarks, here are goals that need to be 
achieved. And you are rewarded if you make — if you achieve, 
it's just like receiving a grade, depending upon how you do. 
And on a yearly basis, the individuals can come up with 
technically, theoretically, three months time cut off per year. 

But then we get individuals who do not — are not 
amenable, for one reason or another. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the proportion of each of 
those categories? That is, you set a date early on. How many, 
just rough estimates, do you think get delayed or accelerated of 
all of the wards, where there's a change in the date that was 
originally determined? 

MR. BAUTISTA: Senator, I don't have the statistics 
right now, but given where we're at, I think if I recall seeing 


a chart of statistics, I don't think we have — we've been 
pretty well in tune with our guidelines in terms of certain PCD 
— parole consideration dates. 

I think that if anything, more likely we're more 
likely to give time for behavior problems than anything else. 

But I think, as I recall, and I don't have -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That is a variation from the 
initial determination — 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — would be when there's 
misbehavior and you would add time. 

MR. BAUTISTA: Based on — based on the 
recommendation of the Youth Authority and the individuals who 
work in it . 

Again, I didn't mean to imply that we unilaterally do 
that. What we do, like I said, we proceed on in an annual 
review report that either recommend or, you know, time adds or 
time cuts . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm trying to get a rough estimate 
of how many time adds or time cuts do you think you act on in 
the course of a year? 

MR. BAUTISTA: Senator, I don't have those figures 
right now. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've been there doing this for 
five years. Just a sense of how that — 

MR. BAUTISTA: If I recall — if I recall the 
figures, I think that we have exceeded that by about like three 
months per year. I think '93, I think we were in excess of 


three months, or something like that. And I think most of that 
was — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean three months more rather 
than less? Is that what you mean? 

MR. BAUTISTA: I think we're right at baseline in 
terms of what we've given at the initial hearing. But I don't 
— I think it's — again, because I don't have those figures 
before me, I think that we've been either maintaining that, or 
we have given time because of behavior. I think that may be in 
excess of three months. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Essentially what I'm trying to 
understand, I'm trying to inform myself with respect to the 
indeterminate sentencing debate, and get some benefit of your 
experience in that kind of a system to better inform our 
judgments about that. 

MR. BAUTISTA: Senator, I can understand your 
concern. And, you know, I would be more than happy. 

Again, I apologize for not having those statistics 
before me to assist you and the Committee in terms of trying to 
understand — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm mostly interested in your 
impressions and philosophy, so it's not a statistical exercise. 

MR. BAUTISTA: I think, Senator, given my position as 
a hearing officer, I think I'm — I think I have seen, again, I 
don't have the raw statistics to back that, more — less likely 
to give them more time unless there's some serious offenses. 
And I think that, given my recollection of figures, we have been 
more consistent with what was originally given in the baseline. 


And I think that the Legislature's had that 
discussion before, and we have clearly, when we meet, you know, 
we look at that. We look at those variables that were 
generally, you know, more time, and trying to take it down as 
much as we can. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Are there other questions at all from Members? Are 
you ready to act on this particular matter? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm unaware of opposition being 
present . 

If ever I skip by that, I have generally found 
statements of support are unnecessary if my sense is that it's 
five to zero for the person, so that's why I try to accelerate 
at that moment. 

We have a motion by Senator Beverly. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB : Ayala Aye . Senator Lewis . 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 


SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 



MR. BAUTISTA: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Robyn Black is our next. I 
believe Senator Costa wanted to drop by. 

MS. BLACK: Good afternoon. Did you want to wait for 
Senator Costa? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, we'll fit him in when he 
comes . 

Do you want to start with any comments? 

MS. BLACK: I do have a short statement, beginning 
probably with I hope you're all 49er fans. 


MS. BLACK: That was wishful thinking. 

I want to thank you, Senators and Mr. Chairman, for 
allowing me to be here this afternoon in regards to my 
appointment to the Industrial Welfare Commission. 

My appointment to the IWC represents one of two 
employer seats. In addition to my work on the Commission, I am 
a partner in a family farming operation which employs 
approximately 90 full-time persons. My husband and I are 
partners in several agricultural related businesses, and since 
1990, have acted as licensed realtor. 

As you are well aware, it is the duty of the 
Commission to ascertain the wages paid to all employees in the 
state, and to ascertain the hours, conditions of labor and 
employment in various occupations, trades, and industries in 
which employees are employed in this state, and to investigate 
the health, safety, and welfare of such employees. 

Since it is the obligation of this Commission to look 


at the interest of employees, I view my role as an employer 
representative as a very important challenge. It is the 
responsibility of the IWC to ensure fair treatment of employees 
and fair competition for employers . 

I have felt that this is why, I think, that my role 
is especially challenging, because given the interests of the 
Commission, and the charge of being an employer rep, I feel it's 
an important role . 

I have felt it further incumbent upon me to 
understand and assimilate the employees ' issues in the lack of 
our Commission having a public member during my time on the 

Despite the issues, I've always based my positions on 
first understanding the wants and needs on both sides, and have 
preferred to find solutions based on common ground. I bring 
this fundamental philosophy to my role as a Commissioner, and 
during my ten months on the Commission, I believe I have 
conscientiously and with pragmatism considered all issues which 
have come before the IWC. 

As required by law this year, we will soon begin the 
formal review of the current minimum wage. I believe in a 
minimum wage; however, until we begin that process and fully 
study the relevant information and the economic impacts and 
dynamics, I cannot tell you what I believe that minimum wage 
should be. 

I bring to this Commission no immovable positions. 
Rather, I offer my personal commitment to study each issue as 
they come before the Commission, and with compassion and reason, 


make the best decision that I'm able. Decisions that will 
represent both my obligation to the Industrial Welfare 
Commission, and my obligation to the employers. 

I hope to do the best job I can every day that I 
serve, and I welcome any questions that you might have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let's segue Senator Costa into 
this discussion. 

Why don ' t you introduce this lady? 

SENATOR COSTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
Members of the Rules Committee. 

I've known Robyn Black for a number of years. She is 
a constituent of mine and Senator Maddy's, and during the time 
that I have known her, I have found her to be fair, even handed, 
and a person who cares very much about the future of this state. 

While I don't pretend that during her tenure on the 
Commission, that she or I will agree on every single issue, I 
can safely say that that probably would also relate to just 
about everybody who serves on a host of different boards and 
commissions . 

But I think that, as one of the employer appointees 
by the Governor, that she also, from her previous background, 
understands the importance of issues affecting employees. And 
she also, in her activities in a number of agricultural 
organizations that I'm familiar with, has been very concerned 
about how agriculture comes into the 20th Century, and its 
ongoing relationship with, labor. 

And so, I think — and I mean that in a general 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You chose the right century. It's 
still trying to get into the 20th. 

SENATOR COSTA: But I'm talking about — Senator 
Petris, let me explain that. I meant that people have been 
critical in the past of agriculture in terms of their efforts in 
the area of employee /employer relations, and many of us have 
been involved with a number of those issues. And I think that 
they have made, I would say, tremendous strides have been made 
in the last ten years or more. 

While some can argue that maybe more needs to be 
done, this is a person who's concerned about that balance and 
that relationship, and that it be professional, and that it be 
appropriate and be proper. 

That doesn ' t mean that she is going to agree with you 
and I on a whole host of different issues, but it means that you 
have a person here, in my opinion, who I think will be fair and 
will be accessible and will listen. 

With that, I would like to, you know, recommend that 
the Rules Committee give her every serious consideration for a 
person, I think, who will do a good job. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Senator. 

Let me ask if there are questions from Members that 
they wish to pose? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: We had a long discussion here about 
last week, I think it was. I think that we discussed the 
minimum wage process at great length. 

I just wonder if you think that the minimum wage is 
set at the proper level at this point? 


MS. BLACK: Well, I appreciate that question. 

During the time that I've been on the Commission, the 
ten months, even though we have not begun a formal review, I 
have read as much as I've been able to find on the issue, from 
both employers and employees . 

It is my hope that this year, we will have a public 
member very soon, and we will begin the formal process. 

I certainly come to this Commission with the 
understanding of the employer's side of the argument regarding 
minimum wage, and what I truly hope to do is learn both sides 
before I make any decision on that. I don't feel like I have 
been — had enough information. We've had no public hearings on 
the wage issue so that we can really look at the economic 
impacts . 

I can't tell you, Senator, and I do apologize. 

SENATOR AYALA: You voted no last March to review of 
the minimum wage? 

MS. BLACK: In March of this last year? 

SENATOR AYALA: Last March, the question came up, and 
I understand you voted not to review the minimum wage. 

MS. BLACK: That's correct. I had been on the 
Commission approximately, I believe, eight days. That was my 
first hearing. 

It was — I really hadn't had any time to look at any 
information. I wasn't prepared to vote on something that I knew 
nothing about, basically. 

And as I said, I hope that very shortly we will begin 
the formal review, and then I'll be afforded the opportunity to 


study the issue and make the right decision. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone present? I know 
there are employer groups that are supportive . We haven ' t 
received any letters of opposition, so let me at least inquire 
formally if there's anyone that would wish to make such a 

And then ask Members one more time if they have 
questions? Senator. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are you really a farmer? 

MS. BLACK: Am I a farmer? Fourth generation. 


MS. BLACK: In Fresno County. 

SENATOR PETRIS: First time I ever saw a farmer like 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: What do you grow? 

MS. BLACK: Mostly vegetables. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's terrific. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm a no vote now. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I already warned her, though, 
about broccoli, and all these things. 

MS. BLACK: Broccoli, of course. 

SENATOR PETRIS: He's with President Bush on that. 

MS. BLACK: We hold out hope that you'll change your 
mind about broccoli. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I want to go into the minimum wage 


thing also, following up on what Senator Ayala was saying. 

Now, as an employer representative, you would be 
expected, I would expect, that you would have an employer's 
viewpoint . That ' s why you ' re picked for that particular 
category based on your experience as an employer. 

Do you find it difficult when these issues come up to 
really take into account the employees ■ viewpoint? 

MS. BLACK: Do I — 

SENATOR PETRIS: To consider the employee's 
viewpoint. Labor representatives that come before the 
Commission to advocate a position. 

MS. BLACK: Not at all. 

I probably honestly go out of my way to consider and 
listen and put myself in their perspective, in their position, 
when those issues come before me. 

If there's one quality, I think, that I would bring 
to this Commission more than anything, any task that I do, it's 
that I thoroughly try to understand both sides' perspective, and 
then make a decision based on that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I think historically, this group is 
divided pretty much along employer/employee lines on most of the 
issues, especially on minimum wage. Now, I don't have a count 
of each vote, but that's the way it seems to come down. 

There are increases from time to time, probably even 
a unanimous vote from time to time, but there hasn't been an 
increase since 1988, and I suspect that part of it's lack of a 
quorum. There hasn't been a full Commission for some time. 

How much of that is due, in the short time you've 


been on the Board, how much of that is due to that kind of a 
division? Employer representatives go one way, and the employee 
representatives vote the other way, and you have a deadlock. 

Have you seen that? 

MS. BLACK: I would say yes, to some degree, that 
that is true . 

I think that there ' s been a great hope amongst us 
that we would soon have that public member. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Kind of a swing vote? 

MS. BLACK: It's my personal feeling that when go in, 
and when we begin the formal review process of minimum wage, 
that we should have all parties represented fairly, 
employees /employers, and the public member, and then 
pragmatically, base a decision at that time with all parties 
really being able to put forth and make the best decision that 
they can. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Let me go into some specifics. 

One of the issues that always comes before us in 
talking to nominees for this particular position is the ten-hour 
workday, sometimes twelve-hour workday, that some employers 
impose. They come out 40 hours at the end of a week, but they 
like to go 10 hours, 12 hours, without any overtime, because 
they say that by the time the week's over, you've only worked 40 
hours . 

Now, the employees have always opposed that; 
individual employees , union representatives have always opposed 
that. It seems to come up in the culinary workers, I guess, and 
hospitals, too. And they say, "No, we don't want to do that. 


We want to stick to the 8-hour day, and if you want us to work 
longer on a particular day, we get time and a half for that." 

Now, the Board, when this has come up, has voted more 
than once to approve; isn't that right, Mr. Chairman? Has voted 
to approve this 12-hour workday. 

I guess that's also prior to your time. That hasn't 
come up since you've been on the Board? 

MS. BLACK: The only issue that we have actively been 
looking at during my ten months on the Commission so far has 
been a mandatory day off issue, allowing an industry an 
exception during a harvest for a brief period of time to have a 
temporary exemption. And that's not even formally open and 
under review. It's just kind of in an information point of 

The question that you're asking me about, no, it's 
not come up formally before us, but I expect that it probably 
will very soon. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That troubles me. I don't mean in 
your case, but just historically. 

There's certain issues that, you know, you can't 
really change a person's mind. Like Senator Lockyer and the 
First Amendment . He ' s the foremost champion in the whole world 
on the First Amendment. 

Now, I don't care what the issue is, if you come to 
him and tell him to weaken the First Amendment, you've got to 
find somebody else to talk to. 

Similarly, with the labor representatives, when it 
comes to this issue, going up to 10 hours or 12 hours, they are 


so strongly opposed to it; historically it took so many years to 
get to the 8-hour day. Of course, we've had it for a long time, 
but there ' s some veterans still around who fought for that 
8-hour day over a period of time. 

The feelings there are so strong, I wonder why the 
employer representatives have continued to vote for that, and in 
some cases, imposed it on, combined with the public member, 
imposed it on employees who said: this isn't fair; they don't 
want to do it this way. 

Do you have any answer for that? 

MS. BLACK: Not having been on the Commission at that 
time, I cannot tell you. 

As far as my own position on that, as I said in my 
opening statement, I bring no immovable positions to this role, 
to this job. 

I hope to do the best job I can, having heard both 
sides, and then make a decision. 

I was surprised when, I believe, one of the 
exemptions was in the nursing industry. The IWC had changed the 
orders to allow a 12 -hour day. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's where we've had most of the 
complaints . 

MS. BLACK: And I understand that, and I have read 
some of the letters from some of the women — people that are 
involved in that industry now talk about fatigue, and some of 
the flexibility that they feel that they've lost. 

The only thing I can say to you is, I would be 
especially cognizant to ask those questions of anybody that was 


— any industry or order that came before us again to make sure 
that we don ' t place undue hardship on employees . 

The only thing that I offer as a personal, when I 
look at those issues, is that if it's a win-win, and it's a win 
for employers, it provides for more flexibility, if it's a win 
for employees because they will have, in theory, an additional 
day off, and maybe not so much of a commuter problem, then I 
don't — you know, I have much to learn about the issue, but I 
would certainly be better prepared to ask the questions, having 
learned of some of the problems with the previous orders . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There may be a process, 
recommendation, that I could insert here. 

As I understand the previous orders, the employees do 
vote on whether or not they're desirous of the longer workday. 

But unlike the rules under any NLRB, National Labor 
Relations matter, which are sort of the equivalent at the 
federal level of what you're doing, there's a very careful 
procedure to make sure the voting is done fairly. 

I'm told that in some of the industries where votes 
occur, the employer in effect controls all the balloting, and 
there's some allegation of unfairness. 

So, separate from whether it's a good or a bad idea, 
it may be that if you do this in the future, that the orders 
could reflect a better process to have the matter debated. 

It isn't a substantive matter, but a process one. 

Senator, did you want to continue? 

SENATOR PETRIS: I did, but I changed my mind. 

Thank you . 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the pleasure of the 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion. Is there any 
objection to recording the four of us as voting aye, and we'll 
leave the roll open so that Senator Lewis may record, if he 
wishes to, when he returns. 

[Thereupon the previous roll 
was substituted, and the 
confirmation was recommended 
with the vote of 5-0, Senator 
Lewis later voting aye.] 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. Good luck. 
MS. BLACK: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think your fair-mindedness is 
evident, and I wish you well. 

MS. BLACK: I appreciate that, thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, Senators. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And broccoli has no First 
Amendment rights . 

[Laughter. ] 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Gillis is next. Good 
afternoon, sir. 

MR. GILLIS: Good afternoon, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you want to start at all with 
any introductory comment? 

MR. GILLIS: Just basically, thank you. I want to 
thank you for being here this afternoon. I'm happy that I've 


been nominated again for a second term on the Board of Prison 
Terms . 

Just a little bit about my background, I have a law 
enforcement background. I had 26 years with the Los Angeles 
Police Department and retired from there, and my wife and I 
opened up a small business. I was then appointed — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What kind of business? 

MR. GILLIS: We had a computer business, sales and 

And then I was appointed to this position. I didn't 
have a prepared statement, but I will give you my educational 
background also. 

I have a Bachelor's degree in Public Administration, 
and a Master's degree — correction. That's a Bachelor's degree 
in Political Science, and a Master's degree in Public 
Administration. And I also had a year of law school. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How have you liked this job for 
the last four years? How do you like this work? 

MR. GILLIS: I felt that we were doing something very 
important. It's a job that, the work is something that you 
don't really think about whether you like or dislike. It's 
something that's very necessary. 

So, I have done my best to do the best job possible. 
I enjoy being on the Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do any particular decisions or 
tasks stand out as the most difficult, routinely, that are sort 
of similar kinds of problems or circumstances that you have to 
make decisions that are the tougher ones? 


MR. GILLIS: I guess all of my career in law 
enforcement, I had to make tough decisions, so I don't really 
think of them as being tough, the decisions that I'm making now, 

However, I do think of some as maybe being a little 
more difficult than others. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What would be an example? 

MR. GILLIS: I guess those would be — an example 
would be an individual who has gotten very close to what we 
consider to be suitable for parole, and it's very difficult, 
once he's close to that line, to decide whether you're going to 
grant at this particular time, or whether you're going to wait 
another year. 

So, those are probably the more difficult decisions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the quantity of those that 
you see in the course of a year? 

MR. GILLIS: I guess percentage-wise, probably ten 
percent . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That are in that kind of close 
call category? 

MR. GILLIS: That are in the gray area, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are the considerations that 
are in your mind, then when you make those kinds of decisions? 

MR. GILLIS: The primary consideration is whether or 
not the individual is going to reoffend when released, and, of 
course, that being public safety. So, you're really concerned 
as to whether or not, should you decide to grant at this time, 
and maybe there is a gray area, whether or not this individual 
is going to reoffend. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there any sort of guidelines 
that you can rely on? What helps you; what informs your 
decision as to whether they will or won't reoffend? 

MR. GILLIS: We look at the criteria, whether or not 
— well, what kind of criminal history the individual has; 
whether or not the individual has a history of drug or substance 
abuse, and there are several others. But when you put all those 
together, and then there is something that the individual has 
not quite moved over into the range where it's not doubtful, 
then of course, that's what makes it tough. If he's right on 
the borders, in those cases, of course, you rule in the public 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you developed any 
recommendations that you ' d want to share with us about either 
sentencing policies or prison programs that would be different 
than they currently are? 

MR. GILLIS: Well, I had listened to the discussion 
about determinate and indeterminate. And, of course, I feel 
that indeterminate sentencing is the better way to go. It 
certainly gives someone an opportunity to look at the 
individual's past history. It gives them an opportunity to see 
whether or not he or she has programmed. Indeterminate gives 
you an opportunity to take the public safety into mind prior to 
making a decision. 

Under determinate sentencing, you have no choice. 
And there are some individuals who are under determinate 
sentencing that we know, once they are released, they're going 
to go out and reoffend, but there's nothing we can do about 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Except wait for three strikes, 
now, as the current law will eventually operate. 

MR. GILLIS: Yes, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What about prison programs or 
operations? Do you have any observations? Obviously, you're in 
the middle of that, but just as you see the results of it in the 
people that are before you, anything that you would change 

MR. GILLIS: We're beginning to see the result of the 
tight resources, and that is, the individual who's not had — 
who's not been able to get into a substance abuse program, or 
someone who's not prepared to go out and sustain himself or 
herself without reverting to a life of crime. And we're 
beginning to see those. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Lack of job training, or whatever? 

MR. GILLIS: Lack of job training. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other Members? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'd like to ask Mr. Gillis, what are 
the main factors that determine in your mind whether an inmate 
who's been convicted of a vicious murder, rape, is suitable or 
not suitable to be released? What are the main factors that you 
feel are most important? 

MR. GILLIS: We always say the best predictor of 
future behavior is what the individual has done in the past . 

If you start looking at the individual's past, and 
you see that they started using substance at an early age, or 
they started committing crimes at an early age, or in and out of 


Juvenile Hall, and all of those things that are negative 
factors, you take all of those into consideration and then look 
at the commitment offense that he's been committed for. And if 
there is a long history of those things that the individual has 
to clear up, then you start looking at what kind of programming 
he or she has done, and whether or not they've done enough that 
would make you feel comfortable in releasing them. 

If there are a series of vicious offenses, I think, 
well, the more offenses, the more difficult it is for the 
individual to show that he's suitable. 

SENATOR AYALA: You take, for instance, Sirhan 
Sirhan. Has he come before you time and again for purposes of 

MR. GILLIS: I've sat on his hearings twice, yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: And nothing changes from one year to 
the other, or every two years, whenever that person comes before 
you, you still keep denying that parole. All things being equal 
from the prior time, you deny that parole. 

There has to be some improvement, or what is it that 
you look for? Let's take, for instance, that individual I just 
mentioned, what do you look for in terms of improvement to grant 
that release? 

MR. GILLIS: I'm not saying — 
• SENATOR AYALA: I hope you never do, but — 

MR. GILLIS: Sirhan Sirhan was one of those, that 
there are some individuals that it would be very difficult for 
them to show that there has been sufficient improvement to 
release them. 


First of all, in Sirhan Sirhan's case, his crime was 
at the — it just struck at the very fabric of our society, 
which is striking down a political figure. 

SENATOR AYALA: He's been before you twice now, 
before you. 


SENATOR AYALA: And there's no change, and you don't 
feel there's any need to even consider his request? 

MR. GILLIS: No, I didn't say that there was no need 
to consider his request. 

I'm saying that it becomes very difficult for him to 
overcome the crime that he's committed. He may some day become 

SENATOR AYALA: How often do they come in before the 
Board? When they become eligible for release, how often? Every 
two years? 

MR. GILLIS: Every two years. With the law that just 
became operational in January of this year, it's five years. 

SENATOR AYALA: Should we make a longer period of 
time to make sure there ' s some change involved? Say five years 
or something like that, before they come back? 

MR. GILLIS: I think the law that just went into 
effect in January of this year, which gives us five years — 

SENATOR AYALA: Five years? 

MR. GILLIS: — a five-year period is sufficient. 
And in that five-year law, it states that the Board will review 
the individual's file within three years. Not a full hearing, 
but review the file to make a determination as to whether or not 


he should come before a full Board. 

But I think five years is probably adequate. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't know if there's any need 
to editorialize, but you can't keep him long enough, as far as 
I'm concerned, just for the record, and nothing we vote on can 
in any way relate to your promise of future deeds or activities. 

Rape is still always determinate, is it not? Did we 
just change it? Did we add an indeterminate segment into the 
one strike law? 

MR. GILLIS: It was just changed. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you're going to now start, not 
yet, but when there are convictions and then hearings down the 
line, you'll start hearing the sexual predator cases that are 
serious matters? 

MR. GILLIS: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I believe that your family also 
suffered a loss due to some criminal activity. 

MR. GILLIS: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I mean, everyone I know has been 
burglarized at one time or another, but I mean a personal loss 
of a family member. 

MR. GILLIS: Yes, sir. My daughter was murdered in 

I had — just a little background on that. I had 
always been very active in the community, and I had decided to 
run for the school board in the City of Alhambra. That was in 
1978. One of my — one of the things that I was most adamant 


about in my campaign for the school board was that we remove 
the gang members from school grounds , that we block the campuses 
and did not allow them to come on. 

There was a gang in the San Gabriel Valley that had 
been very active . They had started becoming involved in 
narcotics, sales of narcotics. 

The campaign was a very heated one. I lost the 
campaign in November, and two months later my daughter was 
murdered by one of the gang members. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They apprehended the person? 

MR. GILLIS: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sure that we're all moved by 
circumstances like this, and even though it's years and years 
later, would wish to just offer our sympathies and condolences 
for a loss of that sort. 

The issue that it necessarily raises to at least be 
talked about is, whether that emotional trauma brings with it 
any emotional constraints that will preclude you from being fair 
in a case that might be before you that involved a gang member, 
or something of that sort? How have you processed all of this? 

MR. GILLIS: At the time, I was a member of the 
police department, the Los Angeles Police Department. I was a 

About a year after my daughter's murder, the 
Department found no problems with my being able to be objective, 
and I was moved into a homicide unit. I became the officer in 
charge of the homicide unit. That was in 1979. 

I didn't retire until 1988. I have handled scores of 


homicide scenes, multiple arrests, and that has never been an 
issue . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Never had a complaint from — 

MR. GILLIS: No, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — an arrestee? 

MR. GILLIS: No, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, and I hope it's okay to 
talk about this, because we're trying to be clear about people's 
fairness and objectivity. 

MR. GILLIS: I understand. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? Senator. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Recently, we've had a couple of 
changes in the law. One goes back to 1984, which authorizes the 
Governor to order a full Board review of a prior parole action. 
There was a lot of sentiment that the parole board was too soft, 
and they wanted to give the Governor a special voice so he could 
veto. If the Board was about to parole someone thought to be 
particularly bad, the Governor could veto it. 

The other one, by Senator Boatwright, also gave the 
Governor authority to review. 

Have there been any reviews by the Governor since 
you ' ve been on? 



MR. GILLIS: I don't know exactly how many, but there 
have been reviews by the Governor. On every parole that is 
granted, it goes to the Governor's Office and it's reviewed. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Automatically? 


MR. GILLIS: Automatically. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have there been any reversals? 

MR. GILLIS: Yes, there have been some. There have 
been some that have been upheld. I really don't know how many. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you know the break down? 

MR. GILLIS: No, it's not an inordinate amount of 
reversals. I don't know how many. 

I think it's a good process. I think it's a good 
process to be reviewed all along the line. And as a matter of 
fact, that's what the full Board does. The full Board will sit, 
en banc, and review cases that have been granted by members of 
the same Board. 

SENATOR PETRIS: There's an ongoing problem that I've 
observed. I don't know how we're supposed to handle it, but one 
is, a lot of emotion expressed by members of the public when 
somebody ' s released . 

Sometimes I get the impression that no convicted 
felon should ever be released from prison. That's the feeling a 
lot of people have out there, no matter how grave or 
comparatively light the act might have been. 

During the period time shortly before these two 
measures were enacted, the law enforcement representation on the 
Board was pretty heavy. Maybe not as heavy as it is now. I 
notice six members, out of eight, are out of law enforcement. 

Why do you suppose the Governor or governors place so 
much reliance on law enforcement? Is it because they come face 
to face with these people before they're convicted over their 
careers, or do they have an historical view? What is the main 


reason for emphasizing law enforcement so much in this category? 

MR. GILLIS: Well, I believe there are several 
reasons , but probably the primary reason is , when we talk about 
the learning curve for other individuals who ' re coming to sit on 
a board who've not been exposed to law enforcement's work, who 
don't understand what's required quite often for conviction, and 
who don't always understand the background for the investigation 
in a criminal trial . I think that ' s one of the things . 

Secondly, I kind of believe that law enforcement 
individuals can be a little more objective than most others, 
because we've seen the innocent and the guilty. We've had to 
make a decision on whether or not to arrest someone, and we 
based it on a certain set of criteria, and it's not just on a 
whim. And quite often, I think a non-law enforcement person 
sitting on a panel wouldn't have that kind of experience to make 
an assessment on it. 

So, I think it's a good practice to have law 
enforcement personnel on the panel, but it also gives a balance 
to have some others, because quite often, those other 
individuals can bring up some issues that the law enforcement 
person may not have seen. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I think that's a good point. You 
have six out of eight now. That doesn't seem like a balance to 
me. It seems a little bit top heavy. 

I can understand your explanation of why you think 
it's good to have law enforcement on there. 

I'm concerned about the predominance, rather than 
just participation. 


How many members are there on this Board? 

MR. GILLIS: There are nine. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So, we have one vacancy, so so far, 
it's six out of eight, and we don't know about who — 

MR. GILLIS: And I'm not sure if it's six out of 
eight, but I think that's probably accurate. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, we have the list here. It 
might six out of nine; might be seven out of nine. We don't 
know who the ninth person's going to be. 

MR. GILLIS: I think the position is about as close 
to having to have someone who's at least had law enforcement 
background, or some experience as an attorney. And it's 
critical in the learning curve when we put individuals on a 
panel who have to carry their own weight . 

SENATOR PETRIS: You have your own orientation 
course. Those of you who are experienced have to teach those 
who come from outside of law enforcement. 


SENATOR PETRIS: What if they're former jurors? 

MR. GILLIS: Former jurors? 


MR. GILLIS: Gosh, I don't have any feeling, one way 
or the other. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How much impact does this outburst 
have on the Board? I mentioned a lot of public sentiment that, 
from to time, feels that we're too soft, and you're letting 
people out that shouldn't be let out. 

When that happens, does that affect your decision the 


next time around? Is the pressure felt by you, or do you try to 
kind of put it aside and make your own judgment? 

MR. GILLIS: That generally refers to determinately 
sentenced prisoners. The Board doesn't run into that kind of an 
experience because usually by the time we've released, the 
individual is suitable. So, we really don't run into that kind 
of a controversy as far as the Board is concerned. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You don't have any control. Under 
determinate sentencing, they're out at a particular time, and 
that ' s it . 

MR. GILLIS: That's correct. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You still get the heat. The public 
doesn't — 

MR. GILLIS: We still get the heat. They still think 
that they were released by the Board of Prison Terms, but it 
doesn't change the way we do business, because our business is 
to make sure the individuals are suitable before we release 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you get a lot of letters in those 
cases; cases you haven't even had any — 


SENATOR PETRIS: — control over? 

MR. GILLIS: Yes, sir. We get letters; we get phone 
calls; we get questions when we're out in the field, all from 
individuals who don't quite understand that the Board of Prison 
Terms did not release. 

And I'm sure you must get those questions also, 
because they think that you're responsible for the members of 


the Board of Prison Terms, who are releasing these individuals. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We blame you. 

MR. GILLIS: Thank you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, we just send them right to you. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thanks, Mr. Gillis. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In an opposition letter, there's a 
comment that your spouse lobbies? What's that about? What are 
the facts? 

MR. GILLIS: No, sir. My wife is not a lobbyist. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't hold you accountable for 
activities of your spouse, but just to understand the 
circumstances . 

MR. GILLIS: She is active, as I have been, with 
victim organizations. We go out and we talk to crime victims, 
and we — just a lot of different things that we do as far as 
crime victims are concerned, but we're not lobbyists, and she's 
not a lobbyist, and I definitely could not be. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me inquire, I know there's 
support present, if there's opposition present? 

I think we could probably go to a vote if Members are 
prepared to do that . 

SENATOR AYALA: Move Mr. Gillis' confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, we have a motion by 
Senator Ayala recommending confirmation of Mr. Gillis. 

Call the roll, if you would. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 


SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck, sir. 

MR. GILLIS: Thank you. 

SENATOR NIELSEN: Senator, if I may take the liberty, 
there are two of us here who have sat on Sirhan's cases. The 
Chairman asked a question and hazarded an observation. 

It may be instructive to Rules Committee that I 
indicate, the gravity of the life crime itself is sufficient 
cause to not find someone suitable. I can't cite any instance 
where I can say that that ever alone has been the reason. The 
last hearing I did for Mr. Sirhan, he chose not to even attend 
his own hearing. But the gravity — and that is a good example 
of one who offended the mores of our entire nation, and that 
alone can keep him — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Jim, do you want to sit down and 
subject yourself to reconfirmation? 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR NIELSEN: I thought it would be offering a 
little bit of insight to this Committee — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, thank you. 


SENATOR NIELSEN: — that question, because that's 
something that I related to, having sat on Mr. Sirhan's case. 

To the Committee's consideration, the gravity is a 
very important matter in our deliberations . 

No, sir, Mr. Chairman. You got me last time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, we were wimps. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Can the roll be opened on — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, the roll is open. We'll 
record Senator Lewis as voting aye on Ms. Black; five-zero. 

Next one is Ms. Raymundo. Good afternoon. 

MS. RAYMUNDO: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Now that you've been watching, you 
know, we're out of questions. So, this may be fast, unless you 
want to re-answer everything you've already heard. 

But you look like you may have begun with a little 
opening comment, if you would. 

MS. RAYMUNDO: Well, I can give you just kind of 
brief outline of where I'm from, and what I do. 

I'm from San Diego, so don't beat up on me too bad. 
We've already been beat up hard enough. And a Charger fan, I'm 
still a Charger fan, so I'm loyal. 

I have been on the Board for three and a half years. 
I came for the remainder of three years of one term. 

The reason I want to continue is because I believe in 
the system that we have. It's not perfect, but it's getting 
better, and I believe in it. I think it's a good system. 

It provides an opportunity for young people to 
change, and to be productive, and taxpayers, gentlemen. And I 


say that in our hearings often. 

I'm a mother of — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sure they're thrilled at the 
idea of getting to pay taxes . 

MS. RAYMUNDO: Yes. Actually, some of them are 
excited about that, because they've learned some responsibility. 
Not many, but some. 

I'm a mother of three boys, and I work with — the 
majority the wards in the Youth Authority are males — two of 
which are in the field of law enforcement, and I have a teenaged 
son at home that I'm still struggling with. 

I really enjoy the job. I can't say that it's always 
rewarding, but it is rewarding when you see a ward two years 
later, and he's got a college degree and has a family, and comes 
in for discharge. And you think, you revoked him; he did a year 
because you said he had to do it. And that part is rewarding. 
Not too many times , but it happens . 

Oftentimes, we concentrate on the negative and not on 
the positive, and I tend to concentrate on the positive things. 

I welcome any questions . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I notice you spent essentially a 
career in the employment area. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Before this position. 

Are there any observations that you could bring to us 
about either the lack of employment opportunities that makes 
them wind up being a ward before you, or what you do or could do 
better to prepare them or future employment? 


MS. RAYMUNDO: Well, you asked the question earlier, 
and if I may, about expanding programs. 

I have a favorite program, and it has to do with 
employment. It's called the TRP. It's a transitional program 
where wards are placed in a home where they give them job- 
working — actually, they put them through a job search workshop 
type of program. Then they send them out into the community 
where they get interviewed and they get a job. 

It's a 90-day program, and a lot of the wards do very 
well there because they've got a job. They learn how to budget 
their money. Simple things, like opening a checking account, 
balancing the checkbook, those are the kinds of things that 
these young men don't know, and have never learned it from their 
mother, their father, or school, because a lot of them are 
dropouts . 

And I think that — I use that program a lot. Coming 
from the field of employment, that's probably why I — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many of them run through that, 
or what proportion? 

MS. RAYMUNDO: I believe a significant number. Well, 
actually, the program is very small. I believe they've got like 
30 or 40 beds. It's not that many, but it's only a 90-day 
program, so it goes pretty quickly, and they graduate. 

And they have to have a job before they continue. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is that toward the end of their ~ 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — incarceration? 



Oftentimes, you asked earlier about ways that we can 
cut down on the over — or work with the overpopulation. That's 
one of the things that we do. 

If they're getting ready for parole, and they're very 
close to it, and they don't pose a public safety issue out in 
the community, that's one of the things that we do. 

There's still law — you know, still supervised 
there, but they get passes, and they get to go on weekend passes 
if they're doing well, and if they're employed. So, it works 
very well. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Would you expand that — 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — if you had the resources? 

MS. RAYMUNDO: Oh, yes. I would expand that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Your reputation precedes you as 
competent, thorough, fair, energetic. Keep it up. 

Do I have a motion? 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Motion by Senator Ayala. 

May we record the four of us present as voting aye, 
and hold the roll open for Senator Petris . 

[Thereupon the previous roll 
was substituted, and the 
confirmation was recommended 
with the vote of 5-0, Senator 
Petris later voting aye.] 

MS. RAYMUNDO: Thank you, Senators. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 


[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
4:45 P.M. ] 

— 00O00 — 


I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

*f* IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 

this / day of February, 1995. 


Shorthand Reporter 



Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.50 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 270-R when ordering. 





ROOM 113 


1:55 P.M. 

MAR 3 1995 




ROOM 113 

1:55 P.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 


California Horse Racing Board 



Pacific Racing Association (Golden Gate Fields) 




Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 


California Horse Racing Board 1 

Introduction and Support by SENATOR KEN MADDY 1 

Question by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Problems of Female Stewards 2 

Response by SENATOR MADDY 2 

Background and Experience 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Women Stewards ' Allegation of Discrimination 4 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Satellite Wagering 5 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Reallocation of Racing Dates 6 

Witness in Support: 


Pacific Racing Association (Golden Gate Fields) 7 

Resolution of Racing Dates 7 

Statement by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Importance of Racing Dates in Alameda County _ 8 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Labor Relations Disputes 9 

Motion to Confirm 10 

Committee Action 10 

Termination of Proceedings 11 

Certificate of Reporter 12 

— OoOoo — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The first item, to help Senator 
Maddy keep his schedule, Senator Maddy is here to introduce 
Ms. Bertea, appointee to the California Horse Racing Board. 
We'll start with that. It will be very quick, and then move on 
to Assembly Member Kuykendall ' s matter. 

Good afternoon. 

SENATOR MADDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. 

I appreciate it very much to have the opportunity to 
introduce Hyla Bertea, who's been a friend of mine for sometime, 
along with her husband. She is now a member of the California 
Horse Racing Board and has served in that capacity for some 
period of time. 

As many of you know, I have an interest in what takes 
place with horse racing in California. I have not been to many 
of the meetings, but I have certainly had reports that 
Ms. Bertea has served admirably, has tried to understand all the 
issues, and I know there's been some communication between the 
Pro Tern and Ms . Bertea in respect to some of the stewards ' 
problems . I think she tried to answer that as candidly as 

In all respects, I believe she's doing an excellent 
job, and she's extremely well qualified for almost any position 
we could have given her — not we, the Governor could have given 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We don't have too many positions, 
but he has a lot. 

SENATOR MADDY: He has a lot, that's true. 

But I would certainly recommend that you confirm her 
appointment to this Board. I look forward to working with her 
in her capacity as a member of the California Horse Racing 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Maddy, I know you also 
discussed the problems of the female stewards. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You might also want to make any 
comment on it . 

SENATOR MADDY: I think it's a matter that, as you 
and I spoke the other day, that should be resolved and can be 
resolved internally. I don't believe or think necessarily that 
it in any way affects this appointment, primarily because we do 
have a Stewards Committee, or there is a Stewards Committee on 
which Commissioner Valpredo serves. I've spoken to him about 
the issue. 

I think that, as I discussed with you, that with a 
little bit more time, that they can work the problem out, if 
there is a problem. 

There is an open question about location of stewards . 
At one point in time they were employees of the track, if you 
will, the tracks. I changed that by law because I didn't think 
it was appropriate for having the race tracks employ the people 
who were supposed to be monitoring the activities of the race 
tracks. So, they are now employees of the California Horse 
Racing Board or the people of California. 

The issue, and I have not pursued it much, but prior, 

in previous years, Assembly Members of the Committee on G.O. 
have legislated about qualifications of stewards, have 
legislated on a number of areas relating to stewards. One of 
the things that was introduced by Assemblyman Floyd was that 
stewards be rotated in assignments around, so that they all — 
so they would not be fixed too long or too often at the same 
race track. 

There's a mixed feeling about that. Horsemen like to 
know who the stewards are. Obviously, if they're impartial 
judges about situations, it helps to be able to go talk to them. 

So, I think this was a rotation of assignment issue 
that should and can be resolved internally, and I would trust 
that those stewards who are involved would go back and try again 
with the Board and that subcommittee . 

I think, frankly, it has really no relationship to 
this appointment. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, I understand. Thank 
you very much. 

SENATOR MADDY: Thank you very much, and I would 
strongly urge that you confirm her appointment. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It looks like you maybe have a 
statement to start with, if you would want to begin with any 
comments at all. 

MS. BERTEA: Thank you, Senator Lockyer and Members 
of the Committee. 

I think really Ken said everything I could think of 
saying. No, I'm kidding. 

I feel that I have the ability to add something to 

the Horse Racing Board. I have good business judgment and 
common sense. And I feel my independence from the horse racing 
industry and the other members will add some strength to the 

I started my career as an elementary school teacher. 
I was Co-Commissioner of Gymnastics for the Los Angeles 1984 
Olympics, and I was on the Los Angeles Organizing Executive 

Currently, I'm a director of Pacific Enterprises, the 
Board of Trustees of Lewis and Clark, and I'm a realtor with 
Grubb and Ellis in residential. 

I'm married. I have four children and one 
grandchild, and I feel that serving on the Board for ten months 
has given me some opportunity to see the strengths and 
challenges of the horse racing industry. 

I would like the opportunity to make a contribution 
and help in the regulation, and I think there's, you know, a lot 
of things that can be done, and I can help the industry, and I 
look forward to the opportunity. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Could you add anything to the 
discussion on the women stewards and their allegation of 

MS. BERTEA: I don't really think they were 
discriminated against. 

I would like to say that I think that it was a 
communication glitch, and the specific woman steward that you 
were concerned about wasn't notified through her own 
representative, from what I can gather. She is being 

considered, and it was hinging on whether the harness racing is 
going to be going on at Cal Expo. And it looks like it will be, 
and I think she probably will get assigned. But that really is 
all still to be decided. 

But she was to be informed that she was being 
considered, and apparently the female stewards didn't 
communicate, and there was just a break down. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there other questions at all 
from Members? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: We have a satellite racing facility 
in San Bernardino, and I think it's well attended. 

Is that working in the industry at all, and if so, do 
you feel we should continue doing that? 

MS. BERTEA: I think it is working, and I think 
there ' s still some things that need to be worked out . 

It's, as you know, newer, and it's being examined all 
the time. It's under discussion right now. 

I think it's been very successful. 

SENATOR AYALA: You support the wagering through 

MS. BERTEA: I really support anything that's good 
for the racing industry, and it looks like it is working well 
for it. 

SENATOR AYALA: Incidentally, you went to a good 
school. I don't know if Mr. Beverly will agree with that, but 
you went to a good school. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: No resume is perfect. 

MS. BERTEA: High school or college? 


MS. BERTEA: All right, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: There was a decision made by the 
Board. I don't know whether it's during your tenure. You've 
been on, what, close to a year? 


SENATOR PETRIS: Reallocating race dates. 


SENATOR PETRIS: You know, over the years we've heard 
a lot about real competition between the different tracks to get 
the maximum number of days that they can. 

MS. BERTEA: Right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The Board regulates it. 

Recently, they've decided to cut down on the Alameda 
County Fair racing and switch it over to one of the other 
tracks. That created a big fuss in Alameda County, where the 
Chair and I live. 

It seemed to me an unfair shifting away from a 
publicly owned activity to a private one. The Golden Gate 
Fields, I think, was the recipient of that, or part of it, but 
most of it, I think went out. I'm sorry I don't have all the 

Are you familiar with that decision? 

MS. BERTEA: I really am not. I know that there have 
been concerns about the date allocations, and that is an ongoing 

Sometimes they eliminate dates because the races 

haven't been filled, and so they kind of consolidate the days. 
I'm not sure that that's the issue that you're discussing. 

SENATOR PETRIS: No, I think it's heavier than that. 
It involves the Fourth of July festivities in racing, which are 
much heavier than the rest of the year. This particular track 
in Alameda County had the Fourth of July, and that was taken 
away and shifted somewhere else. That made a lot of people in 
that county very unhappy. In fact, they want to get some 
legislation to correct that. 

You can't enlighten us? 

MS. BERTEA: I don't have the answer for you, but I 
certainly will get back to you on that in writing, if you'd 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, I would appreciate some further 

MS. BERTEA: All right, certainly. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: May I ask, Senator, on this point, 
I don't know if there's anyone in the audience that would be 
willing or able to provide us with any clarification. 

MR. TUNNEY: I'm Peter Tunney, representing Golden 
Gate Fields. 

I'm actually here in support of the nominee and the 
Racing Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I assumed that was the case. 

MR. TUNNEY: But the answer to that question, Senator 
Petris, there was a discussion last year at the Dates Committee 
— Subcommittee — of the Board that discussed reallocation of 
some of those dates, including Fourth of July. 


But in the final determination, it was left status 
quo and it was not changed. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Wasn't changed. 

MR. TUNNEY: And so, Alameda County Fair still has 
the Fourth of July holiday, and the two weeks that they've 
enjoyed for many, many years. 

SENATOR PETRIS: As a person who's been to the tracks 
twice in the last 50 years, I'm delighted. 

MR. TUNNEY: I think I was there both times, Senator. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And I won both times. I'm a 
lifetime winner. It didn't become abusive or addictive. 

Was that postponed or just dropped? 

MR. TUNNEY: I think it was just dropped at that 
time, and the Board thought that keeping the status quo was the 
best — in the best wisdom. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I appreciate you clarifying that, 
because the impression I got, it was much farther along than 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I will only add, now you'll know 
this is something we are concerned about, the two of us. 

Our county is one of those where the County Board of 
Supervisors, not the Governor, appoints the members to the Fair 
Board. So, our Fair Board is virtually every prominent 
Republican in my district, about four-fifths of whom are on my 
supporters list. So, I'm very sensitive about their opinions, 
and I hope they won't be ignored just because they're 
Republicans in Alameda County. 

While you're here, if you want at all, you could say, 

Peter, that you're a supporter, if you care to insert that at 
this time. 

MR. TUNNEY: Supporter of the candidate. 


MR. TUNNEY: Absolutely. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think that's why you're here, so 
you might as well . 

MR. TUNNEY: And the industry shares that support. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We're aware of that, too. 

Other questions, Senator Petris? 

SENATOR PETRIS: I've always been interested in the 
labor relations, but things have been kind of quiet during this 
past year. There haven't been any flare ups . The parimutuel 
clerks are the ones that have had problems, especially at Golden 
Gate Field. 

Fortunately, I haven't heard from them in connection 
with this hearing. It means they're probably not unhappy. 

But there were some rather ugly disputes over the 
last ten years, ten or fifteen years. 

Are you the one that smoothed everything over? 

MS. BERTEA: I think probably, Senator, after I got 
on, they quieted down immediately. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there any further questions? 

Anyone else that would wish to indicate support or 

If you wish to close in any way, you're doing fine. 

MS. BERTEA: All I want to do is thank you, and if 


confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity of working with the 
racing industry. It's a very find and important part of 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We agree, and it also creates 
jobs, and revenues, and we need to hopefully reverse the trend 
and expand if we can. 

Senator Beverly, I think, made the motion to 
recommend confirmation. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Or Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I'm delighted to. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 


SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 


MS. BERTEA: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Please keep up the good work. 

It may save considerable time of some people in the 
audience — you're always welcome to stay — but to inform you 
that the representative of the Governor's Office just visited 


and asked that we remove the confirmation of Ed Heidig from 
today's calendar and take that matter up at some other time. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
2:10 P.M. ] 

— 00O00 — 


I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

^ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 

ds _/5_ 

this / ^ day of February, 1995. 

Shorthand Reporter 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.50 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 271-R when ordering. 






ROOM 113 


2:50 P.M. 


MAR 2 7 1995 





ROOM 113 

2:50 P.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 


Board of Prison Terms 



Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 


Board of Prison Terms 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Toughest Decision So Far 1 

Preparation Time per Week 3 

Suggestions for Changing the Law 5 

Acknowledge of Letter in Support 5 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Standards Used in Parole Decisions 6 

Appearances of Sirhan Sirhan before Board .... 7 

Percentage of Parole Violators Returning to 

Prison 8 

Parole Board too Lax 9 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Work as Security for Governor Reagan and 

Senator Goldwater 10 

Motion to Confirm 11 

Committee Action 11 

Certificate of Reporter 12 

— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Our first one is Mr. Van Court, 
appointed to the Board of Prison Terms . 

Sir, if you'll join us up here, good afternoon. 

MR. VAN COURT: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you for your willingness to 

Did you want to begin with any kind of opening 
comment at all, sir? 

MR. VAN COURT: No, sir. I think everyone's seen my 
-- a copy of my resume. I'll stand by that and answer any 
questions on it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me just start with, you've 
been there not quite a year, I guess. 

MR. VAN COURT: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Ten months or so. 

What's been the toughest decision you've had to make 
so far? 

MR. VAN COURT: Oh, I think the toughest one was 
possibly two months ago. I had a young Mexican boy that had 
been involved in a drive-by shooting in which murder occurred. 

And from reading the facts in the — both in his 
report and in the C-File, I saw that he had been more or less 
kind of drafted to drive the car and use his car. And during 
the drive-by — and it was up in the area of the little city of 
San Fernando in the northern part of the Los Angeles Basin. And 
one of the boys in the back seat picked up a rifle and shot and 

killed another person. 

And he said that he — there hadn't been any 
discussion about shooting anyone, which I didn't totally 
believe. But still, I felt that he had already done about seven 
and half years and was programming very, very well. But yet, I 
knew that he had, you know, many years yet to go. And I was 
thinking, what a shame it was that he had to be convicted of a 
second degree. However, that's the way the law is. 

And I felt that he was getting -- he was programming 
so well that he'd even gotten his GED and was working on a 
couple of years of getting an AA in college. So, I felt that he 
was probably getting a better education than he would any place 

And I can't believe — I couldn't believe that 
someone would get into your car with a rifle, and you wouldn't 
be the least bit hesitant about leaving the curb under such 
circumstances. But, you know, I didn't really feel that he was 
involved -- as much involved in the murder as the other two 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was this a question of whether to 
schedule him for a parole hearing or something, or was it the 
actual hearing? 

MR. VAN COURT: This was an initial hearing for — to 
set a parole date. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What happened then? 

MR. VAN COURT: Well, of course, he hadn't done 
nearly enough time yet, and plus the programming was something 
that had happened after he'd been in for about five years. So, 

he'd only programmed for a couple of years. 

I'm sure, as I recall, we only gave him a — we put 
the next hearing off, I think, for just one year because he was 
programming so well. And we wanted to encourage him to keep it 
up and to remain disciplinary free. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But those are the kind of tough 
choices you're confronted with regularly, I assume? 

MR. VAN COURT: Senator, every one of them is tough. 
And the only way that you can make them easy is do your 
homework . 

That's why it's absolutely essential that you have 
three Commissioners on every hearing, because it takes a couple 
hours of reading for each and every hearing. And sometimes, 
when it ' s a convoluted crime, it takes longer to take and really 
understand, you know, where all the evidence came from. And you 
just can't cut any corners on it. You really have to get in 
there and read that work. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In a typical week, how much 
preparation is there? Can you generalize how many hours? 

MR. VAN COURT: I would say it takes three people 
putting in approximately two hours apiece before each hearing. 
And so, what we do — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's for each individual 



MR. VAN COURT: For each individual hearing. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And you have a bunch of them; 

MR. VAN COURT: We have about sixteen a week. 

The thing where we'll get a break will be if, for one 
reason or another, one of them will get a continuance, or ask 
for a continuance, or be temporarily in Special Housing Unit and 
can't be brought down, or some reason. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How long does a hearing typically 

MR. VAN COURT: I would say that they would average 
from an hour to an hour and a half. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're running out of hours in a 

MR. VAN COURT: Well, you put in a lot of hours in a 
week, but they schedule it so that you have two hours the first 
day, and then four hearings for the next three days, and then 
two hours the last day, which lets you travel, supposedly. Of 
course, that doesn't take in going to Pelican Bay, because you 
don't get to Pelican Bay in four hours. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You parachute. 


If you drive to Pelican Bay, which is the way I go, 
you know, you're lucky if it takes you seven and a half hours. 
So, I just get a real early start and take off. 

But, you put in — I think it's the hardest working 
committee in the whole state. I've never seen a group of guys 
that work harder to do a good job, and they're all dedicated 

So, I'm just tickled to death to be part of them, and 
I hope to continue to be part of it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have any thought about ways 

the law should changed based on what you have observed during 
this process? 

MR. VAN COURT: Well, I think the most recent law 
allowing us on occasion, for people like Sirhan Sirhan, and Ron 
Corona, and people like that, to have five years between 
hearings because you know very well that there ' s not going to be 
an opportunity. And I think that's working out very well for 
that type of a case. 

When you have someone that's programming, and has 
just started, for the last couple of years, you wouldn't want to 
give them that much time simply because you want to encourage 
him. You don't want to discourage him. And if they're really 
programming well, and going after a vocation — most of them 
have never even had a vocation. 

So, it really is heartwarming to see some of these 
people turn around. And you can see it happen just by their 
disciplinary record while they're in custody. And the first 
couple of years, they can be absolute monsters. Then, all of a 
sudden, they start slowing down and maybe maturing, growing up a 
little bit, and then all of a sudden, the disciplinary reports 
stop. And, you know that these people are programming well at 
that point, and you don't want to do anything that's going to 
discourage them, and yet you know darn well they're not safe 
enough to turn back on the public. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I just want to acknowledge here 
before calling on any other Members that Bill Barnaby wrote a 
very nice letter. I don't know if you've seen it, but 
mentioning your willingness to volunteer to help Paul Brown when 

he was going through his serious illness phase, and that was 
both a nice thing to do and a nice comment that's made by one of 
your friends . 

MR. VAN COURT: Yeah f I'm very honored to have that, 
especially from Bill Barnaby. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there other questions from 
Members? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'll ask, Mr. Van Court, in terms of 
parole for someone who'd been convicted of murder or rape, what 
standards in your mind are the greatest; which factors are more 
important whether you release that person or not? 

MR. VAN COURT: I think, again, the disciplinary 
record that he's accumulated since he's been in custody. His 
performance on programming while he's been in custody, and then 
his response to you during the hearing. And you can — you can 
really judge a person a lot by the way he responds to your 
questions. And then, sitting there with two very experienced 
Commissioners, some of the questions that they come up with are 
quite outstanding. And you can make a pretty good determination 
on how well this guy has turned around. 

But the ultimate decision is, is he going to be safe 
to turn loose on the citizens of the State of California. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aren't some of them very proficient 
in being good before your Board, and deep inside they're still a 
bunch of stinkers, but they put on a good show for you folks? 
How much of that really comes into play? Do you really believe 
everything they tell you? 

MR. VAN COURT: No way. No, we — having been a 

police officer for many years, and working in narcotic 
enforcement, and a multitude -- every assignment you can think 
of in law enforcement, you can pretty well judge the character. 
And I think I probably should have a Ph.D. from the School of 
Hard Knocks, working a radio car in the city of Los Angeles for 
five years before I went into the detective bureau. 

In those days when I worked, interrogation was one of 
the most important things that you could do in police work, 
because those statements were vitally important. And I think 
you can pretty well tell when someone is being just simply 
manipulative or is actually telling the truth. 

SENATOR AYALA: In the case of people like Sirhan 
Sirhan, how many times has he appeared before your Board? Not 
necessarily your Board, but this Board? 

MR. VAN COURT: I haven't had the pleasure or having 
— appearing on a Board with Mr. Sirhan yet, but I think he gets 
a hearing about every two years or so . 

SENATOR AYALA: That was my next question. The 
person's been before this Board year after year after year, and 
you turn him down. What's going to change on that? Why hear 
him at all? I know it's inhumane to say that. 

MR. VAN COURT: Well, I think that five-year delay 
between hearings is just made for people like him. And still, 
if something miraculous happened, and all of a sudden he made a 
turn around, at least there 'd be a — you'd have to give him a 
decent hearing to see what he had to say, to see if he'd made 
any changes . 

But basically, the severity of the crime, and his 


crime was second to none, you know, being a cold, calculated 
execution, because that's what it was. 

Of course, the amazing this is, nowadays, that seems 
to be the rule in so many of the homicides. They are just plain 
executions. They decided that no witness is the kind of witness 
that they want against them, so they simply execute them during 
the time of the crime. 

SENATOR AYALA: I often wondered what do you folks 
expect to change from one year to the other in a person like 
that guy? 

MR. VAN COURT: Well, I have to admit that prior to 
eight months ago, when I started on this Board of Prison Terms, 
I think I was pretty well suspicious of most everyone that was 
in custody. 

But I was very happily able to see that there were 
some of these people that were programming, that were changing, 
and that that programming and just watching that disciplinary 
record was really a tremendous indication on what type of person 
you're dealing with. Because early on, some of the goofy things 
— they're throwing feces and urine on the prison guards, and 
they're smuggling dope in, and they're doing all kinds of 
things. And then, all of a sudden, it starts spreading out, and 
it's fewer and fewer, and all of a sudden, when you're talking 
to the guy, he's coming up with some reasonable answers. And 
once that you can — you can see that this guy is growing up. 

And that's the biggest part of it, is maturation. 

SENATOR AYALA: What percentage of returnees that 
have been paroled have returned to the prison for violation of 

parole? I'm talking about these vicious criminals that we turn 
out once in a while. 

MR. VAN COURT: I don't actually have that 
information, but I would guess that in the State of California, 
there are quite -- in this state, there's many, many people that 
violate parole and return. And I would venture to say that it 
would be somewhere up at least 40 percent. 

And I read that figure on one of the bulletins put 
out by the Department of Corrections, that we have a higher rate 
of parole violations, people returned to custody, in California 
than you have in the other 49 states. 

SENATOR AYALA: Doesn't that tell you that perhaps 
we're too lax when we turn these people loose? 

MR. VAN COURT: Well, the problem is, is when you 
violate the prisoner — a parole officer violates the prisoner, 
which is not really my area of expertise, you can only keep them 
in custody for a very short period of time before you have to 
turn them loose again. 

And I think if — I think something that would make a 
more serious violation, make the guy do a longer term would 
probably have — make a bigger impression on him. 

I'm still -- I still believe that there are a certain 
number of criminals that like to be in custody; at least they 
get three squares a day, they don't have to worry about hustling 
and whether they're going to get their next meal or a warm place 
to sleep. And those people, you know, you're probably not going 
to really change those very much. 

But the average person, the most valuable thing that 


he has is freedom. And anything that's going to take away that 
freedom, you know, his ability to go out and do whatever he 
wants to, I think if parole violators lost a little more time, I 
think that they would be much more inclined not to violate their 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

MR. VAN COURT: Thank you, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I note that you, among other 
things, helped with security for Governor Reagan and Senator 
Goldwater . 

MR. VAN COURT: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Maybe you should have been there 
for President Reagan, too. I don't know if that would have made 
a difference. 

MR. VAN COURT: I just happened to be in the right 
place at the right time. It was kind of timing. 

But in '64, of course, Secret Service did not provide 
any security for a presidential candidate. 


MR. VAN COURT: No, that was the last year that — 


MR. VAN COURT: — the candidate had to come up with 
his own security. 

That was my first venture into any kind of political 
activity, and then strictly as a security person. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone — don't feel 
compelled to comment, but if there are audience members present 
who wish to comment, you certainly may. 


Other questions from Members? Otherwise, I'll ask 
for a motion. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris? 

SENATOR PETRIS: I was going to move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, we have a motion for 
confirmation from Pelewis . Call the roll, 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's obvious, Mr. Van Court, 
you're very conscientious about your duties, and we encourage 
you to continue to do so. 

MR. VAN COURT: Thank you all. I appreciate it very 


[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
3:25 P.M. ] 

— 00O00 — 


I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

rjy IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 


this^>l_a da Y of February, 1995. 

horthand Repc 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.50 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, C A 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 272-R when ordering. 





ROOM 113 


MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1995 
1:50 P.M. 


MAR 2 7 1995 





ROOM 113 

MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1995 
1:50 P.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 


State Board of Education 


Superintendent of Public Instruction 


State Board of Education 


Retired Businessman and Farmer 

REGINALD TIO NICHOLS, Principal and Head Master 
Fellowship Academy, San Francisco 


Association of California School Administrators 


California Federation of Teachers 


California School Employees Association 


Service Employees international Union 


APPEARANCES ( Continued) 

Brett Harte Intermediate School, Hayward 


California Teachers Association 

California Veterans Board 


Fish and Game Commission 



Legal Consultant for Senator Hayden 

HUEY JOHNSON, President 
Aldo Leopold Society 

WALT SIKES, Executive Director 
California Waterfowl Association 

The Fund for Animals 




Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 


California State Board of Education 1 

Introduction and Support by DELAINE EASTIN, 

Superintendent of Public Instruction 1 

Introduction and Support by SENATOR QUENTIN KOPP ... 3 

Opening Statement on Background and Philosophy .... 5 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

What Are the Answers to Today ' s Education 

Problems 19 

Higher Entrance Salaries for Teachers 19 

Incentives 20 

Public Position on Voucher System 22 

Privatization of Public Education 23 

Opinions on The Bell Curve 24 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Distribution of Written Material to 

Board Members 27 

Kentucky as a Model 27 

Position on Local School Districts Having 

Ability to Levy Taxes 28 

Why Assessment Makes Schools Better 30 

Where Additional Expenditures on Schools 

Might Be Contemplated 31 

Need to Lower Class Sizes 33 

Salaries 34 

What Money Is Wasted Now 34 


INDEX (Continued^ 

Number of Boards and Commissions on Which 

Nominee Is Currently Serving 35 

National Education Standards and Improvement 

Council 36 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Commitment re: Voucher System 37 

Position on Charter Schools 38 

Appreciation for California's Cultural 

Diversity 39 

Accusation of Insensitivity from Opposition ... 39 

Background on Company 41 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Bilingual Education 43 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Position on Debate over Primary Language 

Instruction 45 

Thoughts about Voucher Initiatives in 

Oregon and Colorado . 46 

Philosophy of Heritage Foundation ... 47 

Need to Learn Nominee ' s Opinion and Philosophy 

with Respect to Issues 50 

Position on Edison Project and Channel One .... 51 

Witnesses in Support: 


State Board of Education 52 


Retired Businessman and Farmer 54 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Type of Farming 55 

Knowledge of Nominee 55 


INDEX (Continued) 

REGINALD NICHOLS, President and Head Master 

Fellowship Academy, San Francisco 56 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Description of Fellowship Academy 58 

Student Test Scores 58 

Activities of Nominee for Academy 59 

Disagreements with Nominee 59 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Feelings about Voucher Proposal ....... 60 

Parents Committed to Education because 

of Tuitions . 61 

Typical Class Size 62 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Differences between Fellowship Academy 

and Public Schools 62 

Who Isn't on Same Page 63 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Position on IQ Testing 65 

Value of Standardized Testing 66 

Witnesses in Opposition: 


Association of California School Administrators ... 66 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Would ACSA Ever Support any Nominee 

Who Favored Voucher System 68 

Litmus Test 68 


California Federation of Teachers .... 69 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Nominee's Public Position on Vouchers .... 70 


INDEX ( Continued ^ 


California School Employees Association 70 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Need for Balance on State Board ....... 75 


Service Employees International Union 7 6 


Brett Harte Intermediate School, Hayward 77 


California Teachers Association 78 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Position on Affirmative Action 80 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Circulation of Summary of The Bell Curve 81 

Statement on Affirmative Action 84 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

The Bell Curve ' s Tendency to Support 

Racist Doctrines 85 

Dishonest Scholarship 86 

Selective Dissemination of Information 

to Board Members 87 

Request by CHAIMAN LOCKYER to Put Over Vote 88 


California Veterans Board . 88 

Introduction and Statement in Support by 


Background and Experience 91 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Ability of Department of Health Services 

to Run Veterans Home 92 

Number of Veterans Homes in California ....... 93 


INDEX ( Continued^ 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Poor Reputation of State Military Reserve .... 94 

What Is State Military Reserve 96 

Organization of Military Reserve 96 

Budget 97 

Promotion of Officers and Retiring of 

Personnel 98 

Most Important Mission of State Military 

Reserve 100 

Use of Resources in Disasters 100 

Relationship with Various Veterans ' 

Organizations 101 

Cal. Vet Loan Program and Problems for 

Oakland Fire Victims 101 

Motion to Confirm 104 

Committee Action 104 


Fish and Game Commission 105 

Background and Experience 105 

Introduction and Support by SENATOR QUENTIN KOPP ... 107 

Issues of Concern by SENATOR TOM HAYDEN 108 

Political Pressures Causing Fish and Game 

Department Not to Enforce Laws 109 

Removal of Director Boyd Gibbons 109 

Administration's Intention to Weaken 

Endangered Species Act 109 

Filing of 193 Violations of Wildlife 

Codes against Nominee's Corporation 110 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Knowledge of Violations and Current 

Plans of Butte County's D.A Ill 


INDEX (Continued) 

Testimony of STEPHANIE RUBIN, Legal Counsel 


Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Knowledge of Civil Settlement Discussions .... 113 

Whose Game Was Involved in Violations 114 

Response by SENATOR HAYDEN re: Legal Limits 

in Possession 114 

Concerns by SENATOR HAYDEN re: 

Fish and Game Philosophy 115 

Discrepancies in Nominee ■ s Statement and 

Butte County D.A. 's Statement 115 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Settlement Conversations 116 

Knowledge of Violation with Respect to 

Keeping Game 117 

Possibility of More Information before 

Floor Vote 117 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

No Criminal Charges Filed in Case 117 

Statements by SENATOR HAYDEN re: 

Concern about Nonenforcement of Fish and Game 

Laws 118 

Need for Senate Oversight of Department 118 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Undue Political Influence in Fish and Game 

Department regarding Enforcement 119 

Endangered Species Listing Questions 120 

Reason for Director Gibbons ' s Removal 120 

Most Difficult Issue while on Commission 123 

INDEX (Continued) 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Vote on Listing Gnat Catcher 125 

Issue with Southern Salamander 125 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Occupations of Commissioners 126 

Conflicting Mission of Hunters Versus 

Animal Rights and Need for Balance 127 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: Nominee's 

Obvious Sensitivity to Habitat Protection Issues ... 128 

Witnesses in Support: 

HUEY JOHNSON, President 

Aldo Leopold Society 129 

WALT SIKES, Executive Director 

California Waterfowl Association 132 

Witness with Concerns: 


Fund for Animals 133 

Motion to Confirm 136 

Committee Action 136 

Termination of Proceedings 137 

Certificate of Reporter 138 

— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Our first item is the confirmation 
of Mr. Hume. If you'll come on up. 

Mr. Hume, customarily we begin with an opening 
statement, if desired by the gubernatorial appointees. Since 
Superintendent East in is about to be late to another meeting, 
would you mind if we, at her request, let her make her brief 
comment before you proceed? 

MR. HUME: I'd be delighted. 


SUPERINTENDENT EASTIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair and 
Senators . 

I am Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine 
Eastin. It is the first time I have appeared in the Senate in 
that capacity, and it is my pleasure to do so. 

I first want to say that it is my goal in this term 
of office to ensure that we do everything we can do 
fundamentally transform public education, to reform it, along 
lines that those of us who love our children and our state will 
feel good about. 

I believe that California is either going to change 
the way it educates its children, or it will be changed in a 
rather heavy-handed way, and in a way that may not serve all of 
the children. Toward that end, I need members of the State 
Board that I honestly feel will put the interests of children 
first: people who are open-minded and will in fact be open to 
some fundamental change; who will be thoughtful, hard working, 

but who will always put the children first. 

Mr. Hume and I haven't always always agreed on 
matters as related to public education. And yet, on the most 
important basic values as they relate to public education — 
that is, putting the children first, fundamentally changing the 
system along the lines of fairness, along the lines of hope, and 
along the lines of improving the resources that are available to 
kids in California -- we do agree. 

I have found him to be most helpful as a member of 
the State Board, and as you know, the State Constitution means 
that I'm joined at the hip with the State Board, and so I need 
people there who, in fact, do think creatively but do think 
consistently about how we can improve education. 

So, I'm here today, even though some of my friends do 
not support this confirmation, -to ask you with all due respect 
that you confirm this candidate. It is my belief that he can 
help us in ways that, frankly, we very much need help. Namely, 
we need leaders in the business community, not only who will 
criticize us, or who will tell us what's not working in 
education, but who will constructively work with us to change 
education, and will bring other business leaders along to make 
those changes. We need to have people who will, in fact, get 
inside the tent with all of us that care about California's 
education, its economy, its future as a democracy, and help us 
constructively to change. 

I have found Mr . Hume to be that kind of a Board 
member. And so, I am here today, with absolutely a very clear 
conscience and a very positive attitude about this candidacy. 

And he has my full endorsement, and I do need to have people 
that will not only be open-minded, but will roll up their 
sleeves and really do the work at hand. 

Mr. Hume is such a Board member, and I would ask 
respectfully that this panel confirm him. 


Any questions? Thank you, Superintendent. 

Of course, probably at least three of the five of us, 
maybe more, are delighted also to see you making an appearance 
as Superintendent . 

SUPERINTENDENT EASTIN: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Kopp, you wanted to make 
a comment? 


I have been fulfilling my duties in the new Senate 
Committee on Housing and Land use; otherwise, I wanted to be 
here to present Mr. Hume to the Committee. 

I am, however, pleased that Superintendent Eastin was 
able to provide a perhaps equally or even more relevant opinion 
with respect to his manifest qualifications. 

Permit me to give you my perspective, and it's a 
perspective based upon two decades of knowledge of Mr. Hume in 
the City and County of San Francisco. 

His reputation for intellectual integrity and truth 
is of the highest order. It is unimpeachable, and it has never 
been impeached. 

More relevantly, both in terms of subject matter and 
time, approximately four years ago, Mr. Hume communicated with 

me in a role as a part of the California Roundtable and the 
Education Committee thereof. I have received from him several 
communications in that respect, and several statements of how 
and in what manner he believed public education could be 
improved . 

Now, that all predated his service on the State Board 
of Education. It is probative of the fact that his commitment 
and his interest are genuine, not based upon the understandable 
human desire of so many to serve on a policy making commission 
for the sake of proclaiming that they are on a policy making 
board or commission. 

Mr. Hume is unusual in my experience, and I may be 
not able to match the experience of some of my wise elders, like 
Senator Petris, Senator Beverly, and Senator Ayala, but in my 
experience, he is extraordinary because of his 
conscientiousness. Now, some may differ with respect to one 
approach or another approach, but the underlying and irrefutable 
fact is his dedication to public education and to the 
improvement of public education in California. 

As a San Franciscan, and as a member of the San 
Francisco greater community, I'm proud to present Mr. Hume's 
credentials, and to present him personally to the Committee with 
my unremitting recommendation that he be recommended to the full 
State Senate for confirmation. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Senator Kopp. We 
appreciate your comments. 

Mr. Hume, let me apologize. As a person who managed 

to not have breakfast or lunch, I'm eating something that 
probably your firm — a french fry — probably your firm is 
responsible for. 

MR. HUME: They need garlic on them to make them 
really good. 

SENATOR LEWIS: We appreciate you not doing that. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If you would, you wanted to begin 
with an opening statement . 

MR. HUME: I do, thank you very much. 

There are also some individuals in the audience who 
came, who might make statements on my behalf. You should give 
me guidance on how we should do that . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When you're done, we'll ask for 
other testimony. 

MR. HUME: There are certain defining incidents in my 
involvement with education. It goes back a long way. It 
started out actually in 1972. I was a founding trustee of San 
Francisco University High School in San Francisco. I was on 
that board for 13 years. I raised money for the school. I was 
on the curriculum committee. I was on the master planning 
committee. I hired the initial head; went through searches for 
successive heads. I was really quite involved with that, and 
that school was a super success. It sends kids to the best 
colleges in the country. 

I became involved with Fellowship Academy. Now, 
Fellowship is a school in San Francisco which takes people from 
the inner city and succeeds. And Reggie Nichols, Head Master of 

Fellowship Academy, is here, and I would really hope that the 
Committee would have a chance to talk with Reggie, because this 
is a success story that you just will be proud of. 

I was involved with the Challenger School. The 
Challenger School is a for-profit school in San Jose. I haven't 
been very involved in that, but the thing that characterizes the 
Challenger School was the academic accomplishments of those 
kids. It's a for-profit school; $4,000 a child. The children 
test in the 94th percentile on the Stanford Achievement Test, 
and they test every kid every year, and it's a success. 

Some private schools work very well, and I have seen 
education work, and work well in a number of settings. 

Until I became a member of the California Business 
Roundtable, that was my perspective on education: something 
that worked and worked pretty well. 

I became a member of the California Business 
Roundtable in 1984 and went on the Education Task Force. The 
Roundtable had just finished SB 813, and I became deeply 
involved in SB 1274, the restructuring bill. 

The restructuring bill was built around a Roundtable 
report on education reform in California. The report 
recommended, among other things: standards, assessment, 
parental choice among public schools, teacher evaluation, a look 
at the use of time in the classroom, a look at the school year, 
a myriad of items that would involve change in the way the 
schools were conducted. 

A defining thread that wove its way through the 
report and the Roundtable ' s beliefs were that keys to change 

were accountability of the system for student results and 
parental choice of schools. We came to believe that the system 
must become more accountable to the consumers of education: 
parents and children. 

We tried to get the full restructuring bill through 
the Legislature, and the resulting bill, SB 1274, resulted. It 
was a shadow of what we had proposed in the initial bill; very 
little accountability and no choice. Basically it was a bill 
that offered extra funds to schools for proposing innovative 
ideas for educational reform. 

We had all put a great deal of time on restructuring 
education, and I, for one, felt that the resulting bill probably 
would result in no system-wide change, maybe changes around the 
edges , not nothing fundamental . 

About that time, I was invited to speak at the 
Secretary of Education Panel on Choice in Denver. Secretary 
Cavasos, the then-Secretary of Education, convened a series of 
education choice panels at different places in the country. I 
was chosen to be the keynote speaker in Denver. 

After I spoke, a mother from the audience came up to 
me with tears in her eyes and said, "I have four children, and 
they can't read. What am I going to do?" That was one of those 
defining moments. There was a sense of anguish and helplessness 
out there among the parents . 

About that time the Oregon voucher initiative was 
being proposed. I felt that perhaps parental choice was the 
ingredient that was missing in the education equation, so I 
supported the initiative. I was a significant supporter. The 


voucher lost two to one. In looking at the results of the 
initiative, there was the church versus state issue, as well as 
the issue of taking funds away from the public schools that the 
public did not like. 

At about the same time, the Roundtable did a survey 
of the skills of entry level employees. As I recall, Pac Tel 
had a cut-off point of eighth grade reading and math skills. 
Wells Fargo had lowered its cut-off point to seventh grade 
reading and math skills. Both companies encountered over 30 
percent of job applicants that did not meet the requisite skills 
to attain employment. Over 80 percent of the job applicants 
from the inner city did not have the necessary skills. 

I asked our human resources people to provide me with 
data regarding our job applicants. We have a seventh grade 
reading and math cut level. If we employ individuals with less 
than those skills, they are not promotable, and with seniority 
in effect, we must be able to promote people. Fifty percent of 
our applicants could not pass a seventh grade reading or math 

My God, I thought. What are those people going to 
do? What does it mean for our children and our grandchildren? 
What kind of a society do we have in front of us when we are 
moving into an increasingly technologically driven society, and 
50 percent of our job applicants can't qualify for entry level 
positions? We are a low tech industry. We dehydrate onions, 
garlic, potatoes, and beans. That was a wake-up call; another 
defining moment. 

About that time, the Colorado voucher initiative was 

proposed. I was on the list. I was called, and I responded. 
Again I was a significant supporter. This time, the initiative 
was defeated three to one. Again, the post election analysis 
indicated that the church versus state issue, and the concern 
about taking money from the public schools were the main reasons 
for the defeat of the initiative. 

Shortly after that, the California voucher initiative 
was proposed. Joe Alibrandi, who had been head of the Education 
Task Force of the Roundtable, and with whom I had worked very 
closely on restructuring education in California, was a major 
advocate. I was a friend with Joe. I received a number of 
calls from Joe, asking me to become involved and support the 
voucher initiative. This was a friend of mine asking for help. 

I didn't provide any help for the California 
initiative. Joe hasn't spoken to me since that time. The 
initiative failed three to one. 

I'm of the mind at this time that the public is 
unlikely to support a general voucher. So, where does that 
leave me? 

I didn't ask to be appointed to the State Board. The 
Governor asked me, and I guess I'm trying to change the 
institution from within than from without.' And I do believe 
that the institution needs to change. 

I do believe that public education is failing an 
increasing number of our children, especially inner city 
children, that they are not receiving the quality education that 
could be available for the same money that is being currently 
spent on education, as Fellowship Academy and the Challenger 


Schools indicates. 

Fellowship Academy's tuition is $2400. Challenger is 

I do believe that the consequences of that failure 
are ominous for our society, for your and my children, and your 
and my grandchildren. That we are headed to a society that will 
be increasingly described by the intellectual haves and the 
intellectual have nots . That is really not the type of society 
that I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in. 

The Secretary of Education appointed me to the 
National Assessment Governing Board in 1992. NAEP, or the 
National Assessment of Educational Progress, produces the 
nation's report card: the National Assessment of Educational 
Progress. We meet quarterly and are responsible for consensus 
frameworks. We have developed frameworks in math, the arts, 
science, reading, writing, and we are working on civics. We 
have developed assessments and frameworks and standards. 

I believe that assessment of student performance 
against standards is important. I believe the maxim that what 
you assess is what you get, and what you do not assess is what 
you do not get . 

Last Friday in Washington, we were given a preview of 
the 1994 reading assessment results. They are available on a 
state-by-state basis. The results were grim for the country and 
for California. In no way do I see progress being made in 
educational reform as measured by demonstration of student 
skills and knowledge. Last Friday we were also given a preview 
of a comparison of U.S. students versus students from Germany 


and Taiwan. Again, the results showed the U.S. coming out 

Last week, I asked Archie LePonte, held of the 
Educational Testing Service, to address the State Board. I am 
encouraging Mark Tucker and the staff of the National Standards 
Project, which California participates in, to work with the 
Governor and the Superintendent to develop an assessment vehicle 
for California. I have invited Tom Boysen of Kentucky, who is 
in the audience, by the way, to address the State Board and help 
us with our deliberations on assessment. Kentucky can align 
their results with a national and therefore international 
results . Why not California? 

Why focus on assessment? I Chair the Foundation for 
Teaching Economics . It is a summer program for high school 
juniors and high school economics teachers to teach them about 
economics. Accountability plays a major role with the 
Foundation. We test the students when they come into the 
program and when they leave. We have the results evaluated by 
CRESST of — which is an acronym which is something like 
California Research Psychometricians, something. Anyway, it's a 
very important organization in UCLA. Maybe someone else knows 
what CRESST means. I've always called it CRESST. 

What CRESST told us was the teachers that were 
effective and the teachers that were not effective. We have 
students and teachers evaluate master teachers, and we take the 
evaluations seriously. 

The results of the evaluation have enabled us, to 
continue to improve our program, to fine tune our instruction, 


to ensure that the major points are being understood. 
Assessment has enabled us to determine: did the kids and the 
teachers learn what we have endeavored to teach them? If not, 
where are we weak? 

Our programs are different than they were a year ago, 
two years ago, five years ago. Assessment has enabled us to 
change and improve our system. That assessment model, I 
believe, has importance for educational reform in California. 
We have to know where we are, and we don't. Ask yourself, is 
there any way to compare School A versus School B in terms of 
student accomplishment, versus standards in specific subjects? 
There really are no standards in California, and we really need 

What have I been doing since I came on the Board? 
Looking at education from the inside. I've tried to limit my 
focus to a few issues which were identified at a retreat that we 
had last year. I identify those issues as leverage issues. 
They are the following: assessment, the use of time, teacher 
credentialing, the core curriculum, and the use of technology. 

Student assessment. Key to change is knowing where 
we are, and we don't. Shouldn't student skills and knowledge be 
judged against an outside standard that determines what is 
basic, proficient, or advanced, or below basic? We don't have 
that information, and yet, it is the key to understanding how 
well or poorly we are doing in education. 

Kentucky knows how well its students are doing 
against a standard, both state and national. Shouldn't we also 
know in California, and we can. 



The use of time. I distributed to the Board a study- 
by the National Commission on Time and Learning, called 
"Prisoners of Time." Basically, it says that a major portion of 
the time in the classroom — this came to me as a result of my 
being on the National Assessment Governing Board. We are in 
contact with people who come to Washington to do studies . This 
happened to be done by the National Commission on Time and 
Learning, and it says that too much of the time in school is 
spent on other than core curriculum. And if ever we want to 
reform education in California, we've got to start addressing 
the core curriculum. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are the wastes? In what 
manner do they indicate, or perhaps more appropriately, what 
areas would you suggest are the waste — 

MR. HUME: They distinguish between core curriculum 
and non-core curriculum. And they say that you have to spend 
more time on core curriculum. 

Core curriculum would be reading, writing, math, 
history, science. Not driver's ed., you know. You get into the 
buzz saw by saying things like that. Not home economics. 
Things which are fundamental to children being able to master 
subject matter so they can succeed later on in school and in 
their later life. 

So, they distinguish between a core curriculum and a 
non-core curriculum, and they're very specific about it. 

I think we ought to find out how much time we're 
spending in California on a core curriculum, and how much time 
we're spending on non-core items. This report would say that 50 


percent or more of your time is spent on non-core items. I 
mean, it might be drill team; it might be practice for the 
soccer match. 

But we are different from other countries. Japan 
spends much more time on core curriculum than we do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, and the school day, the 
school week, and the school year are significantly different in 
those other cultures. 

MR. HUME: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I would only wish to point out 
that a lot of times, kids, especially that are not motivated to 
be academically enthusiastic, often learn the basics in other 
contexts. So, it may be in driver ed., which is something they 
can understand and relate to. They practice reading and 
analysis, and taking an exam, and other things. 

So, I wouldn't dismiss them as fluff. It may well be 
that they're other hooks to get kids to read, write, do 
arithmetic in just a different context. 

MR. HUME: No, I would agree with that. 

But I think that if a child goes from the second 
grade to the third grade and hasn ' t mastered reading and 
writing, he's not going to be successful in the third grade. 

And so, what I'm saying is, children should be 
absolutely assessed and held accountable for mastery of core 
curriculum at every grade level before they go on to the next 
grade level. And in order to do that, you probably have to 
spend more time on core curriculum. 

You also have to set up standards to know exactly 


what he should know at the end of every grade level. 

Teacher assessment. I sit on the Commission on 
Teacher Credentialing. The CTC credentials Schools of 
Education, not teachers. There is no — now, this is a very 
important issue, and I'd be glad to talk and answer any 
questions on this, but I was amazed when I found that the CTC 
doesn't credential teachers. It credentials Schools of 

And there is an inconsistency between one School of 
Education and another School of Education. You talk to 
teachers, or you talk with superintendents, and they say, "I 
wouldn't take anybody from that School of Education." That's 

We should have a method to evaluate what is coming 
out of Schools of Education. So, I wrote a CTC mission 
statement. CTC mission statement: 

"To attain the highest level of student 

skills and learning, the CTC shall 

establish standards for methods of 

evaluating those standards for: 

(a) School of Education 

(b) teacher graduates 

(c) teacher advancement, and 

(d) teacher discipline. 

"The teacher's certificate shall 
profile for the individual teacher the 
attained range of skills and knowledge, 
citing basic proficient and advanced 


levels of accomplishment. Initial teacher 

compensation would be based on the teacher 


"Teacher advancement would be 

dependent on improving the original 

profile, as well as acquisition of 

additional skills and knowledge as 

specified by CTC . 

"Schools of Education would be 

evaluated and ranked according to the 

profiles of their graduating students." 

I mean, you'd have some leverage over the Schools of 
Education if you ranked them. And right now, you don't. 
Students would want to go to the different Schools of Education 
that have the highest ranking. That's why they go to Harvard. 

Right now, a School of Education is a School of 
Education, as far as I can see it. And, God knows, I'm not on 
the inside. 

Core curriculum. We have developed superior core 
curriculum in California. Is it being used in the Schools of 
Education and the classroom? We don't know and probably will 
not know until we have an assessment framework linked to the 
California framework. 

I mentioned this to Delaine. I said, "Delaine, I 
don't know what's happening inside the Schools of Education." 

She said, "You know, I just had luncheon with a 
series of graduates of Schools of Education. I asked them about 
the California framework. Their information was all over the 


map. " 

I mean, there was no consistency in terms of what the 
different students knew. Now, I don't think that's the type of 
educational training institution you want in this state. 

Technology. Technology is changing our world at an 
ever increasing rate. I communicate with Bulgaria, Chile, and 
parts of the United States via E-Mail . 

I helped the California Academy of Science, which I 
Chaired, go on the Internet and develop an interactive 
multimedia exhibit. One of the defining issues I ever saw was 
Tennyson ' s Ulysses on an interactive multimedia format . I went 
back to New York, and I saw this presentation by IBM. It was 
phenomenal. You could access it in a whole bunch of different 
levels. There was multimedia that came to you. I learned 
things about Tennyson's Ulysses that stay with me to this day. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm glad you said Tennyson's; 
otherwise, we might be into a protracted discussion with our 
Greek scholar here. 

MR. HUME: It was really phenomenal. I mean, I've 
got the tape, and I'd share it with you guys anytime, because it 
is so powerful . 

I helped them, the Academy of Science, develop an 
interactive multimedia exhibit, "Life through Time." 

Technology is happening, and California should be the 
leader, but the dynamics of education have to change. Resources 
have to be reallocated, and I don't know that that will happen, 
given the current circumstances. 

So, I am focusing on time, student assessment, the 


use of technology, teacher assessment, and the use of a core 

My education duties take three days a month, eleven 
months a year, for service on the State Board. I'm back here on 
Wednesday this month. In addition, two days a month, eleven 
months a year, for the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. It 
is a major commitment of time. 

I don't mind doing it. I think it is important. But 
perfectly frankly, I, as well as other members of the Board, 
wonder if we will make a difference. My conclusion is that if 
we can work with you and the Legislature, and in the Governor's 
Office, to draft meaningful legislation that addresses leverage 
issues, and those which I have mentioned above are what I see as 
leverage issues, perhaps we can, and I'm willing to try. 

That's my statement. 


SENATOR AYALA: We had a long talk this morning, and 
I don ' t think I disagree too much with what you find wrong with 
our public schools. 

But I was more concerned with the answers you had to 
the problems facing education today. I was concerned with your 
views on the voucher system — and I understand that at one 
time, you were 100 percent for that, and I consider that an 
elitist approach to public education, by the way — 
privatization of public schools, and The Bell Curve . 

All those things I'd like you to tell us your 
position on, your public position. 

We don't disagree too much on the end product that 


our public schools are producing today. But what are we going 
to do about it? What are the answers; we all know the problems. 

MR. HUME: I think if you're going to change 
education, you have to change relationships. I think we have 
mentioned this this morning. 

In my business, we try and tie the incentive of the 
system to the end result that we want. Consequently, we get the 
whole organization going in one direction. 

As I look at public education right now, I think the 
incentives are perverse. I look at the incentives as not being 
connected with how well the kids do. If you look at the major 
incentives in public education, they're tenure and seniority- 
based promotion. What connection does that have to how well the 
kids do? 

How many people get fired because the kids don't do 

You've got to change the incentive system if you're 
ever going to change schools, in my estimation. 

SENATOR AYALA: One of the incentives is to provide 
an entrance salary to teachers that is higher than the current 
one to attract better quality people to teach our kids. 

MR. HUME: I have no problem with paying for 
performance, for teachers that really teach well. 

SENATOR AYALA: We want to attract good people to our 

MR . HUME : I don ' t have any problem with paying top 
dollar for that. 

But when I read the reports that come out of 


Washington, and one out of New York, where I see that 40, and 
50, and 60 percent of the dollars is not spent in the classroom, 
it's spent on administration and other things, I'm saying, "Hey, 
somehow we're not spending money the way we should have." 

I think the money is there, but you're not spending 
it right. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm not suggesting that by higher 
entrance salaries for teachers, it's a cure-all. But it's only 
one of the ways to start attracting better caliber of people to 
teach our kids. They're going to other professions and other 
industries because they pay better over there. 

MR. HUME: Well, you have no argument with me at all. 
I would be more than happy to pay teachers who really perform 
well in the classroom. But you can't have teachers looked upon 
as a lifetime profession just because they were once certified 
and they've had three years, so they get tenure. 

I mean, I know a teacher in San Francisco who told 
me, "Jerry, you know what I'm going to spend most of my time 
next year doing? I'm going to try to get rid of this teacher 
who came to my school, was forced on my school, and I'm going to 
have to document that, and it's going to take me a full-time 
equivalent in order to get rid of that teacher. And that 
teacher's doing a disservice to my classroom." 

SENATOR AYALA: What are your incentives that you 
have in mind, other than getting rid of tenure? What do you 
propose to improve the quality of education in public schools, 
other than the shifting of that to voucher system, which I 
opposed, by the way. I think it's an elitist approach to 



education, as I said before. 

MR. HUME: Well, I think the first thing you have do 
is, you have to get the parents involved. And the way in which 
I think you get the parents involved, and this is the key to 
starting on educational reform, is to let parents know really 
how well their kids are doing against a set of standards. 
Because that will determine whether their kid ' s doing well, or 
whether their kid's doing poorly. And I'd let it fall out from 
there . 

If you have a whole bunch of active parents involved 
because they know their kids are doing well, or they know their 
kids are doing poorly, you have changed the dynamic. And that's 
what you have to do; you have to change the dynamic. 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't have any problem with local 
control of our schools. I don't think that the federal 
government or the state has a corner on anything to provide 
direction to our public schools. Leave it at the local sector, 
where the people decide what level of education they want to 
provide for their kids, and what they want to pay for that by 
electing their own school board members that do that . And 
that's, again, giving it back to the parents, as you indicate, 
to make sure they have an input into our school system. 

What other incentives do you have for our schools to 
change it? 

Everybody agrees that the end product ' s not what we 
want these days, but how are we going to change the dynamics of 
that system? 

MR. HUME: Well, you know, I listed those leverage 


issues that I think are important. I think you have to look 
carefully at how we spend our time in the classroom. I'm not 
sure we're spending enough time on the core subjects. 

SENATOR AYALA: What is your position on the voucher 
system, public position? 

MR. HUME: My public position, as mentioned to 
Senator Lockyer today, is that I will not support a voucher in 
California for the tenure of my time on the Board of Education. 

SENATOR AYALA: You changed your mind. You supported 
it before. 

MR. HUME: I never supported a voucher system — 

SENATOR AYALA: Not here, but in other states. 

MR. HUME: Right, that's right. 

SENATOR AYALA: So, you're not in support of the 
voucher system in California, but you support the choice system 
in order to get that in first before you come to the voucher 

MR. HUME: I think that the more opportunity you have 
for parents to become actively involved and feel empowered about 
their schools, the more participation you're going to have, and 
the better it's going to be. You bet. 

SENATOR AYALA: I think that when the local school 
boards and the superintendents provide equal schools, no matter 
where they're located, so people don't want to move around, is 
the answer to some of the voucher system that's moving in 

If every school in that school district is equal in 
every way with teachers, curriculum, and everything else, why do 


they want to shift around when each school is equal? 

But we don't do that, and it starts with the local 
government again. 

So, number one, you're against the voucher system. 
What about privatization of public education? 

MR. HUME: Well, I never said anything about the 
privatization of education. 

SENATOR AYALA: Well, I'm asking you. 

MR. HUME: I don't even know what privatization of 
public education means. What do you mean? 

SENATOR AYALA: Turn over the running of our schools, 
the administration, to the private sector. 

MR. HUME: Well, let me tell you a little bit about 
EAI , Educational Alternatives, Inc. I asked the people from 
EAI, and it's run by John Goalie, and I've met John Goalie and 
I've gotten to know him. He has developed EAI to come into the 
schools . 

There are three components of EAI . There is Johnson 
Controls, which comes in and runs the food service and busing 
and maintenance. There is, I think, DeWitt Wallace which does 
the accounting. It's a Big Eight accounting firm. And then 
there is EAI, which is a firm which is built up in terms of 
educational applications. 

EAI has been invited into Miami Dade, into Hartford, 
into Baltimore. And the reports are that they are having some 
success. They have come in. They have been approved by school 
boards to come in and take over the running of schools . They 
are responsible and reportable to the school board, but they 


come in and they run a school. 

Now, what exactly relationship they have with the 
union, I don't know. I think it's different in Dade than it is 
in Hartford than it is in Baltimore. 

And I know that they have been imposed significantly 
in different places. But the funny thing about it is, more 
districts which are really failing are going to EAI . 

Now, I think EAI could probably come to California 
and, if a district invited them in, and wanted them to try, and 
we should look and see whether it works. Not to do that is to 
say, hey, we know better than they know, and I don't know that 
we do. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you think it's constitutional to 
provide public funds for private enterprise, private schools 
or private enterprise? 

MR. HUME: Apparently it's constitutional in these 
other jurisdictions, so I assume it would be constitutional 
here . 

SENATOR AYALA: No, I wouldn't say that it was; just 
that nobody ever challenged them. 

But I would suggest to you that the Constitution 
provides that no public funds will be provided for private use. 
And the schools are private. They're run by people who want to 
make a profit. And I'm glad that the people turned them down, 
but it was a warning for public education that it better 
straighten out a little bit. 

Tell me about The Bell Curve . What do you think 
about that? 


MR. HUME: Well, as I mentioned to you this morning, 
I think The Bell Curve is a book that ' s been on the New York 
Times best seller list. It deals with the impact of 
intelligence on individuals and activities. 

I read — Charles Murray is the author of The Bell 
Curve . He sent me an autographed copy. And I read that thing, 
and I couldn't put it down. I was fascinated by it. 

And I received from the Hudson Institution copies of 
summaries of The Bell Curve , and I distributed that to the Board 
of Education. I felt people should know what is out there. Not 
to know what's out there, I think, is a mistake. I think we 
should have taken a look at The Bell Curve , understood what the 
implications are, and if appropriate, done something. And I 
don ' t know what that is . 

And I certainly haven ■ t mentioned The Bell Curve 
since I distributed a summary of The Bell Curve to the members 
of the Board back in December. 

SENATOR AYALA: So, you didn't support that? 

MR. HUME: I can't take a position on The Bell Curve 
because it's a book. 

SENATOR AYALA: But there's a philosophy in there 
that you either support or don't, and you say you just 
distributed it for the point of information for the members, but 
you didn't necessarily support what it said? 

MR. HUME: It's sort of like bringing Tom Boysen 
here. I'm going to ask Tom to come and address the Board on 
what goes on in education in Kentucky. I think it's important 
that we know what's going on in education. I don't have to take 


a position on it. 

SENATOR AYALA: I agree with that. 

MR. HUME: I think it's important that we know. 

The same thing with bringing Ted Cauldry out here, 
who is on the -- who was the founder of charter schools. I 
think that's important, too. 

I think the more you know, the more intelligent 
decisions you can make. 

SENATOR AYALA: I agree with that, but I was just 
wondering if you supported that viewpoint. 

MR. HUME: I don't know if there's — I don't know 
what the viewpoint of The Bell Curve is. The Bell Curve , in so 
many words, says that there is a distribution of intelligence 
out there in society. 

SENATOR AYALA: As I recall, reading some of the 
information on that particular book, it also referred to the 
super mind of certain ethnic groups as opposed to others, and 
intelligence, and it just wasn't, according to people who excel 
in certain subjects or intelligence, it was just that certain 
groups were not as well informed or as intelligent as other 
groups because of ethnic background. 

MR. HUME: Well, it said that there ' re two parts in 
intelligence. It says that there's nurture and nature. It says 
part of it's your environment and part of it's genes. And I 
think that how much is one and how much is the other is up for 

SENATOR AYALA: You haven't taken a position on it? 

MR. HUME: No, I have not. 



SENATOR AYALA: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you distributed other written 
materials to the Board? 

MR. HUME: Sure. I distributed "Prisoners of Time." 
I distributed the National Academy of Science Study on "What Our 
High School Seniors Should Know", "America's Choice", "High 
Skills or Low Wages", you know. 

I do this because I think these are — this came out 
of a study group. This is the National Center on Education and 
the Economy. 

I think we should know things like this. Today, I 
gave Delaine Eastin a summary of "National Comparisons." And 
this is Kentucky, comparing Kentucky to the nation. 

I think we should know stuff like this, and I think 
we should know why Kentucky — how Kentucky compares itself to 
the nation, what kind of assessment vehicle Kentucky has. 

I'm going to continue doing that, you know. I think 
it's important to bring stuff to the Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've mentioned Kentucky a number 
of times as, maybe, a model or something. 

MR. HUME: I think Kentucky is — ■ and I hope — maybe 
Tom could come up now, because, you know, what's happening in 
Kentucky is sort of exciting to me. Would it be appropriate for 
Tom to come up? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, let's wait until we get some 
witnesses . 

But just on the Kentucky point, you probably know 
that 100 percent of school funding in Kentucky comes from the 


state. They don't have the sort of state-local split like what 
characterizes California and most other states. 

Is that an appropriate way of financing the schools? 

MR. HUME: No. I think the more local control you 
have, the better you are. 

I think that's a problem. I didn't know that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: One of the problems we have with 
local control, at least as it relates to fiscal matters, is, the 
school districts don't have the ability to levy taxes or fees. 

Should they have that capacity? 

MR. HUME: Hasn't that been taken care of by court 
decision, that all districts have to be within $100 of each 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, that's the Serrano-Priest 
equalization, yes. 

But no, that's on the spending side. That is, it's 
really an order to the state, as much as anyone, by the court 
saying, "with all deliberate speed," and we're proceeding very 

MR. HUME: I thought we were there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, it's within — 

MR . HUME : Within a hundred bucks . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: With most school districts, but 
there's still some extremes on both ends, but it's getting 

MR. HUME: I thought the only difference between the 
different districts was categorical. 



MR. HUME: Okay, I didn't know that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But that really doesn't get to my 
question. That's the spending side. 

How about on the revenue raising, taxing side? 
Should, in your view, school district have the ability to levy 
local property taxes, or something else that would supplement 
state funding? 

MR. HUME: Well, you know, if I thought more money 
would improve the schools, I would say yes. But until I can 
feel that more money in the schools is going to improve how well 
the schools do, I'd have to say no. I think you'd be spending 
— throwing more money, good money, after bad. 

So, at the present time, I would not approve 
increasing taxes to put more money into the system until the 
system becomes more accountable for results . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What money, separate from the fact 
that there isn't this assessment of individual classroom or 
school performance that you've talked about at considerable 
length — and I suspect there ' s a good deal of agreement with 
respect to that issue. I know the Superintendent talks about it 
routinely and others — separate from that, let's say you had 
the assessment, and you had those benchmarks that you could 
evaluate different teachers or schools. 

MR. HUME: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What would happen then? In your 
mind, just looking ahead, you've got the assessment, and we've, 
of course, gone through, as you well know, some difficulties in 
reaching agreement on assessment mechanisms. But you've got the 


kind you want, and it's sort of the reading, writing, 
arithmetic form of individualized assessment. 

What happens next? Why does that make things better? 

MR. HUME: Well, again, I think if you have 
individual student assessment that goes home to the parents at 
the end of every grade, the parents become active in the 

I mean, if your child is getting poor marks on 
reading against the state standard, I believe, at least, most 
parents are concerned about how well their kids are doing. And 
they will become involved in the schools. 

I think absent — I mean, if Johnny goes home and has 
A's on the report card, but an A doesn't mean anything against 
the standard, the parent doesn't get active. 

I know when my kids have trouble, we become active in 
the school. It's a motivator to become more active than you 
would otherwise. 

So, I would hope that knowledge on the part of the 
parents about how well their kids are doing against standards 
get the parents involved. 

How that plays out, I think, a thousand flowers will 
grow. You know, however many different ways the parents want 
that to turn out — I mean, there may be more charter schools. 
There may be — I mean, what happened in New York City, for 
example. Sy Fliegel in District 13 went out and went to the 
parents and said, "What kind of schools do you want?" And the 
parents came back and said, "I want an art school," or "I want a 
technology school," or "I want a college prep school." 


And he said, "Okay, we'll give them to you, but 
you've got to sign a contract with us that says if we give you 
these schools, you're going to do the following with your kids. 
You're going to have a contract with them. You're going to shut 
off the television at night. You're going to see they do two 
hours of homework. " 

So, there was a give and take between the parents and 
the school, because the school offered something to the parents 
that the parents didn't have before. 

That's the type of dynamic that I'm looking for. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you would anticipate greater 
parental involvement — 

MR. HUME: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — once the evaluation was in 

MR. HUME: I believe so. I really do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Where, if ever, would you 
contemplate the need for additional expenditures on school 

MR. HUME: Technology, absolutely, hands down. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So that you would do now? 

MR. HUME: Well, even -- even now, I mean, I was on 
the ECTL, the Education Commission on Technology and Learning, 
and at least my exposure to the ECTL is, we really didn't know 
where we were going very well. We had 29 million or $28 million 
to spend, and we sort of spread it around. 

But I can say that I thought there was a focus . I 
mean, what I suggested to the ECTL is, you ought to computerize 


the Schools of Education. You ought to get all this technology 
going into the Schools of Education, because you want a whole 
bunch of teachers coming out of Schools of Education who are up 
to speed and really know what's going on, and then become 
advocates for it at the local level . 

Well, that's not happening. I mean, we're spending 
it at the local level. 

I would rather spend it at the — at the college 
level. Train the teachers that are coming out. Then they can 
become advocates, and they can actually become trainers of the 
teachers in the school. 

I think we're going about it the wrong way. So, I 
would re-divert the funds from ECTL from the local schools to 
the Schools of Education, and the money's there. But as I 
understand, and I asked them, they said we can't do it because 
of Prop. 98. 

Now, I don't know the vagaries of Prop. 98, but 
that's what I was told. I think that's inappropriate. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Prop. 98 monies are restricted to 
K-14, and that may be the reason why, if it's a state college or 
university teaching program, that that money in and of itself 
can't be redirected; although, there's other money. That's not 
the only source of funding. 

MR. HUME: You see what I mean by leverage, though. 
I think you can leverage the Schools of Education by getting 
teachers who are really competent in terms of technology, and 
have them bring it into the schools . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'd like to stay with this issue 


for a few more minutes , because it ' s not uncommon to hear people 
say we don't need to spend more money on schools; that we need 
to spend current monies better, which is what I think I've heard 
you say. 

If we have the largest class sizes in the country, 
does that suggest we're not spending enough to lower class 

MR. HUME: If you read the literature, at least what 
I've read, there is not a one-on-one relationship between much 
money you spend and how well the kids do. 

Now, Honicheck of Ithica wrote this report, and maybe 
it's circulated in the wrong circles, but at least what it said 
is that spending more money doesn't necessarily equate to kids 
doing better. Until we find out that spending more money is 
going to improve the kid's performance, I wouldn't want to spend 
more money. 

If you can show me that spending more money will 
improve the kid's performance, I'm willing to spend more money. 
But I just don't want to throw money over at the same direction 
I've thrown it in the past because I'm not sure it'll produce 
better results. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, class sizes would be one form 
of spending that you're, at least now, not persuaded is a good 

MR. HUME: Class size could be. More technology 
could be. Longer school days could be. Longer school year 
could be. And they all cost money. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess most of the spending that 


occurs in public schools is for salaries. Are they too low, too 
high, about right? Is there some change in the current spending 
of that sort that you would -- 

MR. HUME: I'm personally an advocate of merit pay. 
I would like to spend more money for teachers who really do a 
good job in terms of students and student performance. I think 
that is money well spent. They could be mentor teachers. I 
think that's getting a return on your investment where it has 
the greatest leverage. And that's been opposed. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What money do you think is wasted? 
What money are we wasting or not spending well? 

MR. HUME: You know, I really don't know. I mean, I 
think that the school budgets are — and the accounts are so 
arcane that almost nobody can find out how the money's being 
spent. There is no standard chart of accounts that you can 
compare one school versus another school . I think that ' s a 
great weakness in the system. 

I'd like to have one of the Big Eight firms come in 
and draw up a standard chart of accounts for all schools in 
California so that you can compare one school versus another as 
to how they're spending money. And then you'd tie that to the 
results , and then you ' d see whether spending more money gave 
results . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm looking at the Heritage 
Foundation comment on education. 

MR. HUME: What was the date of that? 


MR. HUME: '94? 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, last year. 

MR. HUME: What was the date of — it's quoting a 
speech; isn't it? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, no. This is their book. 

MR. HUME: Oh, okay. Because they published a speech 
of mine, and I thought that was what you were talking about. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Oh, I've seen that, too, yes. No, 
that was a speech about choice and things of that sort . 

MR . HUME : Yes . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That was one, I guess, when you 
were in your Utah-Colorado phase. 

This essentially says their critique. You're on the 
board, right? 

MR. HUME: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many things are you on the 
board of? I have ECTL. I guess that's concluded its work. 

MR. HUME: I'm off that board because I said to 
Marian McDowell, I said, "Listen, I can't spend any more time on 
this stuff. " 

I'm on the CTC. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The Teacher Credent ialing, State 
Board of Ed. 

MR. HUME: State Board of Ed. NAGB, National 
Assessment Governing Board, this thing I was involved in last 

Foundation for Teaching Economics. I'm off the 
Academy board. That was a great absorber of time. 

I run a company that manufactures onions, garlic, 


potatoes, and beans. And as long as you guys keep eating 
onions, garlic, and potatoes and beans, I can afford to continue 
to come to Sacramento and spend time on the State Board. If you 
stop, then I'm in trouble. So, please do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I've been trying to help you. 

But that's it in terms of these various boards, or 
what have you? 

MR. HUME: Those are the serious boards, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there some nonserious ones? 

MR. HUME: And I ' m on the Business Roundtable. But I 
haven't been able to go any of the Business Roundtable meetings 
lately because the State Board interferes exactly; meets at the 
same time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This may be an example of an area 
in which maybe you disagree with Heritage. I was sort of 
curious about discovering somewhere in here, and I'll try to 
find it so I can be careful. 

They talk about NESIC, the National Education 
Standards and Improvement Council, is that the one? 

MR. HUME: Which has been deep-sixed, which isn't 
going to happen. 

I mean, I was suggested to be put on NESIC, and I 
don't think NESIC — NESIC is now, as I understand it, not going 
to happen. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What happened to it? 

MR. HUME: It became looked upon as such a 
potentially national formulation of standards and all this 
business that it wasn't going to happen. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Don't you support national 

MR. HUME: I support standards, and the states can do 
with them what they will, but I'd like to be able to compare one 
state versus another. Therefore, you've got to have some 
national standard to compare it. 

We developed consensus frameworks in, as I said, 
civics, history, and math, and science, and we have an 
assessment framework for those, and we have standards for those, 
and that's how you do the national assessment. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess the Heritage group, at 
least, is critical of NESIC as the giant school board in the 

MR. HUME: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Lewis, I believe, has some 
questions . 


Mr. Hume, I just want to kind of understand something 
you said previously relative to the voucher approach to 

You made the commitment that as a member of the State 
Board of Education, and that as long as you're a member of the 
State Board of Education, you would do nothing to endorse or 
promote any kind of a — 

MR. HUME: I would not become active, endorse, 
promote, or fund a voucher movement in California. That's my 
commitment , okay? 

SENATOR LEWIS: There was a very poignant article 


that I read in the L.A. Times this weekend. It was relative to 
a fundamental school that had been set up in the Santa Ana 
Unified School District in Orange County. It was a very 
interesting story, and it told the story about how parents had 
camped out for three days and three nights to be in line to get 
their children into this intermediate school. 

Interestingly, it was not a story, as some would have 
you believe, of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants lining up to try 
to get their children into this kind of a school. It was 
really, if you looked at the picture in the paper, it was, you 
know, the faces of changing California — Asians, Vietnamese, 
Hispanics -- that were all anxious to make sure that their 
children get in a really excellent school that's in Orange 

As a member of the State Board of Education, as one 
who certainly thinks that education needs to be revitalized and 
energized, and new experiments tried, I would assume that you're 
in support of concepts like charter schools? 

MR. HUME: I actually participated with Senator Hart 
and the Roundtable in the drafting of the legislation on the 
charter schools. We were very disappointed that it didn't go as 
far as we would like it to go, and it was limited to a hundred. 
I hope that some of the limitations will be taken off, as well 
as the quantity of schools, because I think you can do nothing 
but learn from successes out there. And parents, through the 
grapevine, will know about those successes. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I agree, and I commend you, because I 
think we need to bring about an end to the cookie-cutter 


approach to education, and we can certainly learn from diversity 
and experimentation. 

I'm looking at a letter that's been mailed to the 
Committee in opposition to your appointment. And one of the 
things that the letter says is that one of your problems is 
that, and I want to quote this: 

"His style is to raise numerous questions 

of a divisive nature." 
And it goes on to say that you've done some things like passing 
out The Bell Curve material that was already mentioned. It 
says : 

"Such activities demonstrate a lack of 

sensitivity that appointment to such a 

position demands, especially in a state 

such as California, with its broad 

cultural diversity. " 

I guess the first question I want to know is, do you 
appreciate or do you not appreciate California's broad cultural 

MR. HUME: Well, in the audience is my wife who is a 
Hispanic, and I married a Chilean, and my kids are all 
bilingual. We have had a great deal of fun being bilingual. 

So, you know, this is a good deal. I mean, for me to 
go down south and be able to speak with the taxicab drivers in 
Mexico or in Chile, that's fun. 

SENATOR LEWIS: What about the accusation that you're 
insensitive. Are you an insensitive kind of guy? 

MR. HUME: You know, as I — they were talking about 


I ask questions. 

Do you know the questions I ask? I said, "In terms 
of bilingual education, I want to know how much money the 
state's spending on bilingual education, total; how much it's 
spending per student; what the results are per students; how 
many students are actually becoming bilingual as a result; and 
how many retain their bilingual capability after they get out of 
school . " 

Now, that was just an opportunity to get some 
information. Now, I would assume that those types of questions 
are threatening. But as a State Board member, I'm going to 
continue to ask questions like that. 

It's only by getting answers to questions like that 
that you can determine where the money is spent, how well it's 
being spent, and if it should continue to be spent that way. 

I mean, fishing in the back of my mind, I was asking 
myself: are we really getting value for the money we're 

Now, the fact of the matter is, I don't know how much 
money we're spending. The state doesn't allocate its resources 
so that they can determine how much money we're spending. They 
don't know how well the kids are really doing. I don't know 
what the criteria for exit from a bilingual program are. I 
mean, there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. 

If that's not being sensitive, well then, you're not 
enabling the State Board to ask questions that they should ask 
to determine how the money is being spent in this state. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Apparently there are those that don't 


appreciate the fact that you do ask questions. 

Let me ask you, other than what you've said so far 
today, I'm not familiar with your company. Can you tell us a 
little bit more about it? 

MR. HUME: Basic Vegetable was founded in California 
in the '30s, and it was in the dehydrated vegetable business. 
It employs worldwide about 5,000 people. It's onions and garlic 
in California. We have a plant in King City; workforce is 
predominantly Hispanic . I would characterize our employee 
relations as being quite good. 

We have an employee scholarship program which I 
helped initiate where we send — for any employee who wants to 
have his kids go to college, we underwrite it to the tune of 
$1,000, because we feel strongly that a high school diploma 
doesn't mean a thing any more. Those kids have got to have 
college educations. 

All you have to do is submit a form, and it's got to 
be checked off by the high school that your kid is going to 
school, and then it has to go to the school. It goes through 
some kind of — some organization that checks on the school, 
knows whether the school is there. And we underwrite $1,000 for 
the kid, because we feel strongly about education. 

So, that's part of what I brought to my company. 

We have a corporate giving program, and I have 
focused that corporate giving program on education. I've said 
that that ' s probably where you have the greatest leverage . And 
so, we have supported computers, and Little League, and baseball 
diamonds, and you know. I don't care, you ask it, we've done 


it . 

We make money. I like to make money. It helps me 
sleep at night. We are profitable. We're privately held, and 
we have factories in California, Wisconsin, Washington, Idaho, 
New Mexico, Massachusetts, and Poland. 


MR. HUME: Poland is a real venture, let me tell you. 
It is a real venture. I mean, it's been fun, but Poland is the 
second largest potato grower in the world, and they don't know 
how to store potatoes. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Let's stay in California. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR LEWIS: I just want to make the comment, 
Mr. Hume, that you're Chairman of the Board of a worldwide 
company that has 5,000 employees. You're involved in the 
California Roundtable. You've been involved in all these 
educational organizations. You're sacrificing your time to 
accept this appointment. 

I just think it ' s marvelous that someone who 
obviously has so many commitments as you do is willing to lend 
your expertise to the State of California, and I, for one, 
appreciate it. And I wish you well today. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Any further questions by any Member 
of the Committee? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Second time around. 

On bilingual education. 

MR. HUME: Como esta? 



MR. HUME: Vamos hablar. 

SENATOR AYALA: You're okay. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR AYALA: You've got a lot of class, I want to 
tell you that. You're bilingual. 

You questioned the need, not really, but the good 
it's doing to spend all this money for bilingual education. 

Just on a personal note, I was raised by my 
grandparents who didn't know English. When I started school, I 
didn't know English. The teachers didn't know Spanish. I went 
to a segregated school strictly with kids of Hispanic parents 
who didn't know a bit of English. The teachers didn't know 
Spanish. What a mess. 

I guess I must have been in the third or fourth grade 
before I could raise my hand and say, "Teacher, I want to go to 
the bathroom," or something like that. It was totally a 

I think that you shouldn ' t blame the students because 
their parents either don't know, they don't understand, or they 
don't care. You're hurting the students when you do that. 

If you want to know how much good it has done, well, 
I'm here asking you questions. That's how much good it has 
done, that I was able to get bilingual education. 

Now, I don't support the theory that public schools 
should support the history of the country where the students 
came from or the culture; that's up to the parents to pay for 
that if they want to do that. Schools couldn't possibly teach 
the kids their culture, there's so many in _this state. 

But I support bilingual education to the point where 


you convert the students to the mainstream so they can challenge 
kids on the mainstream, and bring them over to English. 

But don't penalize the kids because the parents don't 
know, they don't care, they don't understand the issue here. 
Help the kids. 

It helped me. I'm here asking you questions, and I 
didn't know English when I started school. That's how good it's 
done me in terms of bilingual education. 

MR. HUME: You know, it's been a fun thing in my 
life, being able to participate in other languages. 

But in terms of the way bilingual education is done 
in California, we were just asked by the CTC — I think I'm 
correct in this — there is a new bill that says teachers can 
qualify for bilingual education certificates with 40 hours. And 
they want to have — kids who are in bilingual education, they 
want to increase it from five years to seven years, because 
that's what they get. 

So, I asked the question, I said, "Hey, listen. 
You're saying a teacher can be qualified for bilingual education 
after 40 hours, and yet you've got to take seven years for the 
kids to be bilingual education. There's an inconsistency 
there . " 

And the audience sort of — sort of chuckled when I 
said that. That's the type of question I'm asking. 

I don't understand what they're really doing. And I 
don't know — you know, this is a complicated issue, and it's 
really not one of the issues I'm focusing on. I'm more 
interested in assessment than I am in bilingual education. 


SENATOR AYALA: Some of the more super patriots in 
this country who think that being bilingual is undemocratic . 

I think that an educated person knows many languages; 
the more the merrier. I wish I knew more than just two so I 
could speak to you in a language you don't understand. I can't 
do it today, and I'm sorry. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess the cutting debate, the 
issue of the moment in the bilingual domain is primary language 
instruction. That is, do they start in the language which is 
their primary language and shift to both or English, or do they 
get immersed in English and adjust. 

Do you have any reflections on that debate? 

MR. HUME: No, I really don't have. I don't have any 
intelligent understanding of the issue. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I must say as a general 
matter, it's impressive that you would care to learn the facts 
before you developed an opinion. 

That's not what we do in this culture. We usually 
have opinions, and then find the fact that justifies whatever 
the belief system it was. 

Maybe that's your business training, to be reality 
testing everything. 

You mentioned the voucher issues in Oregon and 
Colorado, and that voters seemed to vote no because of the 
potential loss of funding to public schools and the church- 
state disagreements that were part of that. 

While that was an analysis of what the voters might 


have been thinking, what were you own thoughts about both? 
Would it have diminished -- 

MR. HUME: I was a major f under in both areas, and 
how many times do you have to get a bloody nose to say, "Hey, 
I'm not interested in this any more?" And you've got to look at 
the reason why. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What does "major" f under mean? 

MR. HUME: Over $50,000. 


MR . HUME : Yes . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'd say that's major. 

But you haven't changed your opinion, only the sort 
of view that voters aren't going to buy that. 

MR. HUME: I still believe that if you can get the 
incentives right, however you get the incentives right, you're 
going to be okay. 

I don't know how you get the incentives right unless 
the performance of the kids is somehow tied with the way in the 
which the organization is rewarded. I don't know any other way. 
That means a financial reward. 

So, if you can figure out how to keep it within the 
closed system it is right now and give a financial reward if the 
kids do very well, I'm all for it. But right now, that's not 

Now, in Kentucky, Tom Boysen should tell you what 
they've done in Kentucky. They provided financial rewards for 
schools when the schools do well, and penalties when they do 
badly. I mean, Tom — you've got a real resource in the 


audience right now who can tell you how to use incentives to 
motivate schools. That's why I'm bringing — I'm asking Tom to 
come out and talk. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We will, it's just that he's not 
up for confirmation; you are. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. HUME: It gives you an idea, you know, of the 
changing of the dynamic . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me ask you about the Heritage 

MR. HUME: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm trying to figure out what's 
their philosophy, and what are things that you personally would 
find persuasive. I haven't had a chance to really do a complete 
study what Heritage does, or what their work may be. You may 
well know more about that than I. 

MR. HUME: You don't want to. I mean, nobody can. 
They generate so much stuff, you can't imagine. 

I think they believe in limited government, 
empowerment of the individual, if you want to look at the core 
of what Heritage is all about. 

I think they try and influence activities on the Hill 
by writing position papers, analyzing legislation. I mean, they 
did a good analysis of the health care issue and came up with 
something less federally run than the administration's proposal. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: With respect to education, I know 
you're emphasized your belief that core curriculum needs 
emphasis . 


MR. HUME: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess that may be invoked by 
their observations about curriculum controversy, in which the 
Heritage points out that there tends to be — well, to quote: 

"There's plenty of of classroom time for 

the latest political fads." 
And they suggest that in the '80s, there was too much 
environmental extremism and multiculturalism. An example given 
of the former is that all students in some curricula make 
environmentally sound decisions in their personal and civic 
lives. Example, recycling. 

Do you have any reaction to those thoughts? 

MR. HUME: I don't know who's writing for the 
Heritage now. Maybe Alison Tucker. She was the — 


MR. HUME: I don't know him. Alison Tucker ran that 
education thing before — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: She's mentioned in the footnote as 
their expert. 

MR. HUME: Yes, and before that it was Jeannie Allen. 

You know, some of the things that Heritage writes I 
agree on; some of the things I don't. 

I haven ' t read that and given it any thought . In 
fact, I sort of stopped reading their education stuff because I 
didn ' t think that it was going anywhere . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So again, sort of what works test, 
or something of that sort. 

MR. HUME: Of Heritage? 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, your own reaction to these 
debates. That is, here's another comment they make, and maybe 
this is one you seem to indicate some agreement with: 

"The evidence clearly shows that reform 

based on increased and equalized spending, 

higher teacher salaries, smaller classes, 

and similar marginal changes does not 

work because they ' re not related to school 

performance or school achievement." 

MR. HUME: What's the footnote there? I'll bet you 
they quote Honicheck. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, that's mentioned, yes, as 
well as some other studies. That's part of the evidence. 

"Only fundamental reform centered around 

school choice can reverse the 

deteriorating performance." 
And then they go on to say, you know, what we've seen in terms 
of vouchers; private religious schools should be allocated 
funds; teacher certification requirements should be relaxed, or 
better still, abolished. 

Any comments about any of those thoughts? 

MR. HUME: No. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You don't have opinions about 
these things? 

MR. HUME: I'm not a clone of the Heritage as far as 
my opinions are concerned. 

Really my focus at this point is what I've tried to 
lay out in the report. I mean, if I can get standards, and the 


use of time, and teacher assessment, I think we will make a lot 
of progress in California. That's where I put my efforts. 

One thing about being on the State Board is, you 
don't have time to read all the stuff that comes across your 
desk because you read all the stuff the State Board sends across 
your desk. 


What I'm trying to learn is your opinion and 
philosophy with respect to some of these issues. I mean, you 
come here as someone with credentials as extremely partisan, a 
major donor to virtually every Republican campaign that's ever 
occurred in recent years in California, to the term limit 
initiative, to Maureen DiMarco ' s campaign. 

You serve on the Board of Heritage Foundation. 
That's some baggage. It's ideological baggage that I think 
makes it fair to try to understand what are your own personal 
opinions . 

So that this is not a birds of a feather flock 
together analysis, I'm trying to distinguish you from the rest 
of the flock. 

MR. HUME: Sure. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And I haven't discovered it yet. 

MR. HUME: I tried to pretty well, you know, as I 
say, I did this when I was coming back on the plane because I 
haven't had time. 

I tried to reflect in these remarks what has brought 
me to where I am as far as education, and what I'm going to try 
and do if I'm elected. I'm going to try very hard to focus on 


assessment, to focus on the use of time, to look at teacher 
credentialing. I think those are leverage issues. 

I don't think we can afford to spend our time on 
other areas when you've got the chance to do that. 

I think really working with you and the Legislature, 
and the Governor, and I think I can work with you all, is going 
to cause us to cause something to happen. 

And I think you need somebody who ' s going to come and 
challenge the conventional way of doing things, which is 
threatening to a lot of people who are benefiting from the 
status quo that is going to look at it a different way. 

So, you know, I've given you a glance at my inner 
soul in ways that other people haven't had, as you well know. 
So, I don't what else I can say. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Last fall, at one of the Board 
meetings, you introduced folks working with the Edison Project. 

MR. HUME: Yes, in December. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. Of course, part of that 
undertaking involves Channel One . 

MR. HUME: Yes, right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That is, the Chris Whittle school 
programs with commercial advertising. 

Do you agree with that concept? 

MR. HUME: Well, that's since gone broke. 

I think the schools got some free use of free 
equipment. And, you know, it was paid for by two minutes of 
advertising and ten minutes, or whatever the ratio was. 

But the schools that wanted it could take advantage 


of it. The schools that didn't want it didn't have to take it. 
They weren't forced to take it. They weren't forced to turn it 
on once they got it. 

So, I think that was a win-win situation for the 
schools . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think it ' d probably be 
appropriate to ask people to comment or testify that are present 
that would wish to. First, anyone that's here in support of 
confirmation, please just come forward. 

MR. MALKASIAN: I'm Bill Malkasian, member of the 
State Board of Education. I was here two months ago. 

I'm not going to repeat everything that has been said 
about Mr. Hume. 


MR. MALKASIAN: So, my presentation will be very 

I did try to get him to talk about Socrates and Homer 
instead of Tennyson, but he doesn't listen, and Rodriguez, but 
he doesn't listen. 

SENATOR PETRIS: He covered it. He raises questions 
that make people ponder and react, maybe impose. 

MR. MALKASIAN: What I wanted to say, there was a 
question asked about bilingual education. 

Just recently at one of our Board meetings, we had a 
large contingent from Central and Southern California come up 
because the rumor was that the State Board wanted to do away or 
was opposed to bilingual education. 

And I watched, which I do a lot of, the Board 


members' reactions. And I watched Mr. Hume's reaction. And 
Mr. Hume's representation to make them feel that that was not 
so; the rumor was not so. That the Board was for bilingual 
education, and it wasn't about to do away with it. 

When he finished discussing the problem with these 
people, and speaking in their language, after the Board meeting 
was over, these people mobbed him in appreciation and 
understanding, and genuinely understanding his attitude, which 
made them feel comfortable. 

Now, Senator, I, too, went to school and couldn't 
speak English when I first went to school. I, too, could not 
speak English when I first went to kindergarten. 

SENATOR AYALA: I thought you had a lot of class when 
I first saw you. 

MR. MALKASIAN: But I watched Mr. Hume's actions. He 
does raise a lot of pointed questions, and he does ruffle a few 
feathers . 

We've had some heavy discussions on assessment, on 
school time, because I come from the educational field. I was a 
principal . 


MR. MALKASIAN: I make statements such as, I think we 
ought to give the power to the site administrators because 
they're the ones that are controlling the educational process of 
the youngsters that are in their schools, and hold them 

We talk about a lot of different things. And my 
whole philosophy is, I learned a lot from Mr. Hume outside of 


the educational complex. And so, I think it would be a shame 
not to approve Mr. Hume. 

He brings a lot of thought, a lot of knowledge that 
we don't have. We talk about partnership in education and 
industry and business; he brings that. He has — the baggage he 
brings is excellent. 

So, I would hope that all of you would see it in your 
minds to approve his nomination. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, next. 

MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman, I have a very, very 
short statement to read. 

My name is Mike Gonzalez. I'm a native of Solano 

I have known Jerry Hume for over 30 years, and 
heartily endorse his appointment to the California State Board 
of Education. 

In all my experience with Jerry, he has been 
concerned about the education of our young people since the 
197 0s. He has thoroughly researched and familiarized himself 
with the aspects of the educational system, and is dedicated to 
applying this knowledge for the betterment of California's 
students . 

I am not an educator. I'm a retired businessman and 

As a successful businessman, one of Jerry's prime 
concerns is that the young people are increasingly unable to 
compete in the world marketplace. 


Jerry is a very compassionate man. He's a hard 
worker. He would bring something to the Board that is very 
essential today. 

Being well aware of his enthusiasm and energy for the 
improvement of our school system in California, I know he will 
be an asset to the Board of Education. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What kind of farming do you do? 

MR. GONZALEZ: Well, just row crops. I'm a native of 
Solano County, third generation. 

I'm Hispanic decent, Mr. Ayala. My family were 
immigrants . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What kind of farming do you do? 

MR. GONZALEZ: Used to have orchards, peaches and 
pears . 

But I understand what you ' re talking about when you 
mentioned about not being able to speak. My family were 
immigrants . They migrated from Spain to Hawaii . They worked in 
the cane fields, came to California in the late 1800s. The 
first thing they did, they learned how to speak English. I'm 
very proud of that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How do you know Mr. Hume for 30 

MR. GONZALEZ: Well, I lived in Vacaville. That's 
where Jerry had his plant. So, we've become — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is that one that smells like 

MR. HUME : That ' s right . That ' s the Hume ' s fumes . 


[Laughters . ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I know the one. 

MR. GONZALEZ: Unfortunately, the plant's gone, so we 
miss -- you don't get that odor going through Solano County. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When you drive Highway 5, it's a 
different odor. 


But thank you so much for your time, and give Jerry 
every consideration because his heart's in the right spot. 
Thank you very much for your time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm not worried about his heart. 
I'm worried about his head. 

MR. GONZALEZ: I want to tell you something; may I? 

As you all know, Jerry ' s a Republican. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I did know that, yes. 

MR. GONZALEZ: I thought you did. 

I want you to know I ' m a Democrat . You ask Tom 

Thank you very, very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Maybe the Governor will appoint 
you, sir. Actually, he rarely appoints Democrats, so we never 
even have to look. 

Next . 

DR. NICHOLS: I've written a prepared statement. My 
name is Dr. Reginald Nichols. I'm President and Head Master of 
Fellowship Academy in San Francisco, which is an independent 
pre-school through eighth grade, dedicated to training urban 
minority leadership. 


It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of my friend, 
Jerry Hume . I met Jerry over four years ago when he was 
introduced to our school. Since that time, as we have gotten to 
know each other, I can certainly speak for his character and 
commitment to equal and quality education for all children in 
California and the nation. 

Jerry's character, I listed a couple of things that 
stand out to me . His empathy and genuine concern about the 
future of education. He's an action oriented person. He's 
proactive, as you can tell, instead of reactive. 

He's open. He's willing to work, willingness to 
think new thoughts and come up with ideas and suggestions, and 
he's a team player. 

I think, again, for me, our dialogue about the 
commitments to quality education, as a principal for 13 years in 
an independent school that serves predominately African-American 
and Hispanic children, Jerry did not have to be involved at all 
with our school or what we do. But in dialoguing with him, our 
conversations were: how can we make sure that urban minority 
children can compete successfully in the future? 

His interest and commitment to urban and minority 
education is noteworthy. He could have absolved himself from 
all responsibility in that regard, but he's a strong advocate 
and supporter of equal access to quality education and 

His record of service on various boards and 
committees and panels speak for itself. Sometimes he takes a 
leadership position, but he's equally content playing a 


background role as long as the dialogue continues and action is 
taken . 

He believes that all children should have equal 
opportunities to successfully compete in the world marketplace. 
He's been involved in our school by introducing us to a variety 
of people who have similar interests, and by supporting our work 
through his own hard work. He believes, like myself, that the 
only way to revitalize our cities, our nation, and our world is 
to invest in education. 

I thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of 
Jerry Hume, and I know he'll be a tremendous asset to the State 
Board of Education. 


SENATOR LEWIS: Would you tell me a little bit more 
about your school? Did you say the youngsters in your school 
are predominately African-American? 

DR. NICHOLS: Yes, 80 percent African-American, and 
about 15 percent Hispanic. 

SENATOR LEWIS: And it's K through 8? 

DR. NICHOLS: Pre-school through 8, yes. 

SENATOR LEWIS: How long has it been in existence? 

DR. NICHOLS: Fourteen years. 

SENATOR LEWIS: How do your students compare on a 
national or state level in terms of test scores? 

DR. NICHOLS: We take the Comprehensive Test of Basic 
Skills. The students perform in the 70th — the 75th 
percentile and better on the CTBS test. 

We take them from all — the school was started to 



give quality education to African-American and Hispanic students 
specifically who were — for parents who were a little concerned 
about the performance criteria in the public school, and at the 
same time, couldn't afford the $10,000 bill for private school. 

So, our school charges $2400 a year. Most of my 
activities right now are raising money to make sure that the 
school runs. The average cost per student is similar to the 
average per student in the public schools . 

SENATOR LEWIS: And Mr. Hume is active in 

DR. NICHOLS: No, Mr. Hume is active in counseling, 
dialogue, those types of things. I think the energy — and 
talking about how — what is the best way to get kids into the 
marketplace; what do they need to compete. 

So, he's a friend, and we have dialogued about what 
the future looks like. How we can get business, and business 
and school partnerships, those types of innovative ideas that we 
need to consider, especially for urban children. 

SENATOR LEWIS: In your dialoguing with Mr. Hume, 
have you ever found yourself disagreeing with him? 

DR. NICHOLS: No, because I find his heart is in the 
right place. I mean, the initial dialogue was how to get 
children, especially urban children, which is my heart, how to 
get them from this point to this point so that corporations like 
IBM, Xerox don't have to spend millions of dollars to train 
entry level children — entry level workers, and how to cut down 
on prisons spending millions of dollars to keep people in 
prison. I mean, that was the nature of our dialogue. 


Invest the money early on in children, so that their 
lives can be different, so that our communities can be 
different, so our world can be different. 

So, I haven't had a chance to disagree with him 
because we have talked about similar issues, and that's where 
our hearts connect, on how make this education thing work. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How did you feel about the voucher 

DR. NICHOLS: I felt comfortable about it in the 
beginning. I asked our parents, you know, how they felt about 
the voucher initiative. The concern was quality education; how 
can we make sure. 

I only serve 225 to 250 children. There are a lot of 
children in the public sector that are not — well, I can't fit 
them in my school . So the concern was , how can we make sure 
that all of the children are educated. 

In the beginning, I think I was like Jerry. I was 
very much for a voucher-type initiative. But at the same time, 
I need to make sure that all children receive a quality 

My colleagues in the public schools, I said, "Look, I 
don't mind that you close me down. I just want all the kids to 
get a quality education. " 

And we have models of that. Why can't those models 
be replicated all over the place? Why do parents and families 
that I associate with, why do they have to be concerned and go 
down to the Board of Ed. to file petitions to go to other 


schools because their neighborhood schools are so bad? 

So, that was the concern with the voucher, how to get 
quality education for all children. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you think maybe you see a more 
committed parent because they're willing to find your school and 
pay — 

DR. NICHOLS: Everybody asks me that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — a couple hundred bucks a month? 

DR. NICHOLS: Everybody asks me that, and whether we 
pick the cream of the crop. 

I say, look, it's education's responsibility to make 
the cream of the crop. 

These are the same parents that come out of public 
schools frustrated, frustrated with public schools, public 
education because their kids are not getting it. They are 
sending their kids to school, and they're coming back, and the 
children are not doing well. 

I think the level of parents — well, I've got 
similar problems. As I talk to my colleagues in public school, 
you know, there's similar problems, making sure that people are 
out at PTA meetings, you know. We have a little grist, but let 
me you, if I weren't doing a good job with kids, they would not 
send their kids to my school. 

I think that's what Jerry's talking about, because 
there's an accountability factor. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many kids? 

DR. NICHOLS: We have between 225 and 250, 
pre-school through eighth grade. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What would be a typical class 


DR. NICHOLS: We try to keep our class sizes to 20. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are you successful? 

DR. NICHOLS: Oh, yes, we are. In middle school, we 
have 25. We asked the teacher to — for any child over 20, it's 
definitely asking the teacher, what can we do with that, whether 
he wants or she wants to increase the class size. 

It's very hard, because that means I have to — 
raising money, making sure those things work is very difficult, 
but we have parents that line up at the door to get their 
children in because of quality ed. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are your primary grade class 

DR. NICHOLS: They're 20. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'd recommend some more dialogue 
between the two of your at your own time about the class size 
issue . 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: What other differences are there, 
other than class size, between your school and the public 

DR. NICHOLS: I think it's — I teach at the 
University of San Francisco, School of Effectiveness in the 
summer, so I have joint faculty. And what I tell the principals 
in training is, you've got to get everybody on the same page in 
the school. I believe that the site administrator, the 
teachers, the parents, the community all have to' work together 


in some cooperative fashion so that the children can get the 
quality education. And that's not an easy thing. 

But to me, the difference is for our school, I feel 
that the climate and the teachers, myself, and the parents, for 
the most part, are on the same page. The parents, the average 
income for the parents at our school is $20,000-25,000. So, 
these people are paying money, $240 a month, to send their kids 
there, and it's a strain. The parents themselves raise 
$65,000-70,000 a year to assist with the education of their 
children. That's a strain. 

But evidently, they feel that we're all on the same 
page. And I think that's the critical point. 

When you look at those schools, and there are lots of 
public schools all over this nation that are doing a great job 
in education, and when I've had the opportunity to talk to some 
of those principals, they're doing a similar thing like we're 
doing. The teachers, the parents, the community, they're all on 
the same page, and kids get a quality education. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Who's not on the page in our local 
area? Teachers? 

DR. NICHOLS: No, I think there's a mixture. I think 
the parents — some of the parents are afraid of what they deem 
as closed systems. I think some of the teachers are afraid of 
the children. I think those types of dynamics really cause 
people not to be on the same page. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I find that puzzling. The ones that 
come to you from the public schools because they're frustrated, 
are they on the public school page? 


DR. NICHOLS: I think they have tried. I think they 
have tried. A lot of them become frustrated because their 
children are getting high grades, A's and B's, but they don't 
feel their kids are learning. They don't feel that their 
children are reading the way they should. They don't feel — 
you know, those types of things. 

So, I don't know which — they don't seem to be on 
the public school page, but I think they have tried, because all 
parents, I feel, want their kids to have a good education. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Every educator from the public 
system that's come before this Committee has told us that 
they're always reaching out, trying to get the parents to come 
in. They don't have much success. There are a lot of parents 
who come in, but there's an awful lot who don't. 

DR. NICHOLS: Right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm trying to untangle this. Is it 
the parent who won't accept the invitation to go visit the 
public school that says, "I'm not on the page," and then comes 
to you and says, "I want you to do better"? I don't understand 

DR. NICHOLS: I think even if a parent has a teacher, 
and the teacher and the parent — let ' s say a third grade 
teacher and a parent of a third grade child, they might be on 
the same page in that grade, but when the child goes to fourth 
grade, they're not on the same page. 

So, the whole system is not cohesive, and you have 
parents that are willing to work with a certain teacher, really 
enjoy that teacher for that certain grade, but the next grade, 


not only does the teacher themselves have problems with the 
teacher in the next grade, but the parents do also. That's 
where — might be the level of frustration. 

So, it's not school-wide. And in the schools that 
really do a good job, the schools that are really — there are 
public schools where people line up to go into the school. What 
is it about those schools? Those schools have teachers, 
administrators, parents, people on the same page. 

And I think there is an accountability issue. 
There's an accountability issue when people are not on ■ — when I 
have a parent who's disgruntled or disappointed. They know they 
can talk to me; they know they can talk to the teacher, and 
let ' s see what we can do to work this out because I want the 
child to graduate from my school doing very well . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you administer IQ tests to your 



DR. NICHOLS: I believe that the IQ tests do not test 
any intelligence, and I believe that they are biased. I do 
believe that there is a bias to them, ethnic and/or racial bias. 
So, we don't use those tests. 

It ' s even hard to use the standardized tests because 
— it's even hard to use standardized tests. If the children — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Because of bias? 

DR. NICHOLS: Because of bias, and because also, I 
think, test mechanisms, for me. There's a tremendous breadth of 
oral tradition in certain communities, and these tests don't 


even test the depth of that. 

So, I have problems with the tests, but we use them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've touched on two things that 
raise concerns for me. One is a flirtation with Bell Curve by 
the appointee, and the second is, I think, an over enthusiasm 
about the value of standardized testing and how much change that 
will create. 

DR. NICHOLS: I think there does need to be some 
mechanism for assessment. We — at Fellowship, we try to use 
the mechanism that's out there, but there needs to be some 
mechanism for assessment, not only for us to assess our 
progress, but also for the parents to assess how good we're 

So, I think there needs to be some mechanism, and 
Bell Curve is another issue. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand. Thanks for your 
comments . 

Are there others present who would wish to comment in 

Is there opposition that would wish to testify at 
this time? 

MR. WELLS: I'm Bob Wells from the School 
Administrators Association. 

I trust that you all have received our letter, and I 
won't read that for you or spend a lot of time on the details of 
that . 

I'd just like to start off by saying that I've found 
Mr. Hume to be a personable, likable guy. And I'll say for 



myself that I miss the aroma of onions when I drive through 
Vacaville. I may love onions more than everybody, but I thought 
that was terrific, and I've missed it. 

But in his service on the State Board, we are 
concerned. As I said in our letter, the State Board of 
Education is becoming a more and more important body, especially 
in light of the court cases over the last few years that vest in 
the State Board all of the policy making authority over 
education except for those areas where you have specifically 
legislated away their control. So, we view this as a very 
important position. 

To have someone in that position who philosophically 
believes in vouchers, to us that's a statement of nonbelief in 
the public school system that we believe is the very foundation 
of our democratic society. 

Mr. Hume's also been quoted as saying that vouchers 
are essential in order to, in essence, leverage us to reform 
ourselves; that reform will only happen if we have vouchers 
there. We absolutely disagree with that. 

I've only been involved in this business for about 15 
or 16 years. And in my time, not only has ACSA been supportive 
of school reform, but the entire school community has come 
together a number of times and pushed an aggressive reform 
agenda . 

And in fact, we have a large body of evidence that 
the reforms that we have pushed have worked. They make a 
difference for our students, especially if you look at the 
history after SB 813, where we invested in teacher training; we 


lengthened the school year; we invested in more textbooks and 
other provisions that we thought would make a difference. We 
set some high goals for ourselves in terms of measurable kinds 
of changes in student performance. Test scores went up, 
enrollment in difficult courses went up, the dropout rate went 

We know still today the kinds of reforms that we need 
to make, and we're anxious to make them. There's no reluctance 
on our part . We don ' t need vouchers out there as a lever or a 
threat to us . 

And having someone believe in those things, sit on 
the policy making body that governs the schools, is a real 
concern to us . 

We're opposed to the confirmation. 


SENATOR LEWIS: Would there ever be a candidate for 
confirmation to the State Board of Education that might be 
supportive of vouchers that you would not be in opposition to? 

MR. WELLS: I don't know. I always say: never say 
never or ever. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Has there ever been one in the past? 


SENATOR LEWIS: My recollection is that a lot of 
people used to criticize President Reagan for supposedly having 
a litmus test on judicial appointments. 

Don't you have a litmus test when it comes to a 
person's philosophical belief in choice in education? 

MR. WELLS: We don't, no. We have nothing either in 



writing or not that directs that. 

We do look at every appointment on its own. We 
consider the history and materials that we can collect, and we 
solicit materials from outside our own organization. 

And I think it ' s — there ' s only been a handful of 
gubernatorial appointments that we ever have opposed, and it 
happens to be in a couple of those cases the voucher was a key 
component of that. 

But there are other reasons to object confirmation. 
And again, forever's a long time, and I don't know what '11 
happen in the future, if there might be a voucher supporter. 

SENATOR LEWIS: You let me know when the day comes 
that you want to do so. 

MR. WELLS: Sure. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Actually, there haven't been many, 
at least while I've been here. I think we haven't had a nominee 
that was supportive of the voucher proposal. 

We've had three or four come through who weren't, but 
not ones that were advocates, as I recall. 

Anything further? Next, please. 

MS. MICHAELS: Hello, I'm Judy Michaels from the 
California Federation of Teachers. 

We're opposed to this appointment primarily because 
of Mr. Hume's stand on the voucher. We don't believe in public 
funds going into privatizing education. 

I'd like to say, Senator Lewis, that like you, I've 
spent many years as a resident of Santa Ana. I'm quite 
familiar with the Santa Ana Unified and the many reforms that 


have been initiated in that school district. And all of those 
have been done without the voucher and without charter schools. 
Fundamental schools are part of the public school system, and 
there have been a lot of improvements in test scores without 
doing that. 

SENATOR LEWIS: It's a great first step. 

MR. MICHAELS: Yes, it is. 

And I'm happy to see the rising in the test scores 
over there . 

Anyway, those are our major reasons, and I won't 
belabor the Committee any more. 


SENATOR AYALA: Can I ask you a question? 

You indicated that you're opposed to the confirmation 
because he supports vouchers? Is that what you said? 

MS. MICHAELS: Yes, and also the privatization. 

SENATOR AYALA: He's indicated that he didn't do 
that, and he promised he wouldn't come out and fight for those 
kinds of projects any more. 

MS. MICHAELS: I think his comments and his testimony 
today do show that he supports privatization of the public 
schools, including the Whittle, Channel One, and that sort of 

MR. PRATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of 
the Committee . 

I'm Rick Pratt with the California School Employees 

There's actually a lot to comment on today, but I 


have just a few points that I'd like to address. The first 
couple really come under the framework of correcting some, I 
think, factual errors that were made. 

On the one hand, it was stated that schools don't 
have any accounting — standardized accounting procedure. And 
that if a private citizen wanted to go and compare how one 
school budgets with another school budget, they wouldn't be able 
to do so because there was no standard way of accounting for 
school expenditures . 

In fact, that's not true. The Department of 
Education does have a standard accounting manual which schools 
are required to follow. School districts are annually audited 
by an outside independent auditor each year. Standard budget 
and accounting information is sent to the Department of 
Education, which then goes on to the State Controller's Office, 
and the Controller issues a report each year on financial 
transactions of school districts. And if anybody wants to see 
how much schools are spending on teachers' salaries, or 
instructional materials, or deferred maintenance, or any of 
these other areas and make those comparisons from district to 
district, they can do that. It's public information, and all 
the citizens have access to that. 

With respect to assessment, the statement was made 
that if you want to know how well students are doing, you just 
can't find out because there really is not assessment, any 
meaningful assessment, taking place in California schools. 

I am a parent of two high school students. And about 
two weeks ago, I got a letter from my school where my kids 


attend, giving them -- giving me their standardized test scores. 
And these were nationally norm standardized tests that were 
mailed to my home address. I didn't ask for them; they were 
automatically mailed when the results were in. My school is a 
public school, and it's really not unique in that sense. Most 
public schools do have that kind of a testing program, and 
parents are informed of the results. 

It is true, however, that we no longer have an 
assessment program which specifically links the assessment to 
California frameworks and curriculum standards, and we used to, 
but that has been sort of in abeyance lately because Governor 
Wilson vetoed the legislation for it, and he took the funding 
for it out of the budget. So, we used to have that kind of a 
program, but at the current time we do not. 

I'd like to address the point that Mr. Hume made 
regarding the job applicants for his company. He stated, I 
believe, it was 50 percent of the entry level job applicants for 
his company cannot read at the seventh grade level. And I think 
that's a problem that we're all aware of, and we're concerned 
with, and nobody can hear of that kind of a statistic and not be 

But we have to bear in mind that the high school 
students who are applying for entry level jobs are not a sample, 
or not an adequate sample, of the high school graduate 
population. For the most part, the good readers, the good 
mathematicians are not applying for the entry level jobs. 
They're going on to community colleges, CSU, UC, other job 
training programs . 


And in fact, these students over the past ten years 
have been served very well by California schools. The CPEC 
report shows that not only the largest number, but the largest 
percentage of high school graduates in California history 
qualified for admission for CSU and UC, and this is even after 
CSU and UC increased their admissions requirements. 

And so, while we do have problems, I think that we 
also have some success stories. And I bring that up because I 
think that we need to have some balance when we look at public 
education, and we look at the needs and ways of improving public 

While it ■ s true we have problems , we also have some 
strengths. And I didn't hear anything in Mr. Hume's testimony 
where he acknowledged those strengths, and I think that a Board 
member ought to have that balance when they look at public 
education in California. 

On the issue of pay for performance, or providing for 
some kind of incentive, it's not clear. I mean, it doesn't work 
in education the way it works in the private sector, where the 
lines of accountability are clear. If a student learns or fails 
to learn — sometimes students fail to learn despite good 
teaching, and sometimes students will learn despite poor 

And if a student doesn't learn, is it because of poor 
teaching or is it become of some other reason? It could be 
because they're hungry; it could be because they have some 
problem at home that's distracting them. 

If you believe in The Bell Curve , it could be because 


they're not genetically equipped to learn. And that is very 
distressing when you link that up with the whole pay for 
performance issue, because it doesn't take a Harvard MBA to 
figure out that if you believe that some students are 
genetically predisposed to higher achievement, and if you're 
going to get paid for achievement, then you — we know where 
we're going to devote our resources, and we know who's going to 
get left by the wayside. 

On the issue of privatization, Senator Ayala brought 
up the issue of the privatization, and EAI, which is Education 
Alternatives, Inc. And Mr. Hume suggested that we ought to be 
willing to try to that in California, and why not? 

To your direct question, it is against the California 
Constitution for public education — for public schools, or any 
part of public schools, to be turned over to private operations. 
That is in the California Constitution. I don't know about 
other states. They may have different kinds of provisions. 

But to the question of why should we or should we not 
try something like EAI in California, we can only look to 
Baltimore. Early test results which were — this is a case 
where some of the schools in the Baltimore public schools were 
given over to private management under EAI. And some of the 
early results indicated that the students in those schools were 
doing a little better than the students in the other Baltimore 
public schools. 

But it turns out that those early results were issued 
by EAI and were incomplete. And several months later, when the 
complete scores came out, not only were they not doing better 


than the kids in the public schools, but they were doing worse 
and that the gap was widening. 

I don't think that's the kind of experiment that we 
want to try in California. 

We understand that the commitment has been made by 
Mr. Hume not to support the voucher in California for as long as 
he serves on the Board. But this does relate to other forms of 
privatization, such as Educational Alternatives, Inc., because 
we believe that if you manage to do something like the 
privatization of school management on a big scale in California, 
then you accomplish the same objectives as the voucher, and the 
voucher then becomes moot. 

So, we are just as troubled by that as we are to the 
voucher system, and we're not reassured by any commitment not to 
publicly support a voucher while he is on the Board. 

We believe, in anticipation of Senator Lewis's 
question in terms of a litmus test, we believe that a Board 
member ought to have a fundamental commitment to keeping public 
education public. And that is a very important issue with us, 
and I sincerely doubt that we would endorse the appointment of 
anybody who does support the voucher system. 

Thank you very much. 


Just following up on your last comment, midway 
through your comments, you were arguing for the need of balance. 

MR. PRATT: Right. 

SENATOR LEWIS: You used that terminology. 

Is it asking too much that one member of the State 


Board of Education be allowed to be confirmed who's not knee- 
jerk opposition to educational choice? 

MR. PRATT: Well, we're not talking about educational 
choice; we're talking about the voucher, which is public money 
for private -- 

SENATOR LEWIS: Either/or. 

MR. PRATT: Well, we've taken support on several 
choice measures that have been before the Legislature as long as 
it's within the public schools. 

Where we draw the line is, we do not believe that we 
ought to provide public taxpayer dollars for private schools and 
private education. 

SENATOR LEWIS: But in terms of balance, the answer 
to the question is, if anybody has the audacity to be at least 
open to the notion of a voucher approach to education, even if 
that person commits during the term of his office he wouldn't 
campaign in that direction, you still would be opposed to the 

MR. PRATT: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Next, please. 

MS. CASTRO: Good afternoon. I'm Michelle Castro on 
behalf of the Service Employees International Union. 

We, too, are in opposition to the appointment of 
Mr. Hume predominantly for his positions on vouchers and for 
his support for the privatization of school services and 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Next, please. 


MS. SINKLER-WRIGHT: Good afternoon. My name is 
Sherry Sinkler-Wright . I am a vice principal at Brett Harte 
Intermediate School in Hayward. 

I came here to attend an ACSA conference, and I 
haven't been primed or anything, but in listening to this 
hearing, I've had some real concerns about the appointment of 
Mr . Hume . 

I think that, as most of you have stated, I agree and 
I thank him for all of his contributions to education. He has 
some very good credentials . 

However, I have some questions that I'd like raised. 
I believe that education should be holistic. I've worked in 
Oakland extensively and in Hayward, and there are a great deal 
of needs and things that need to happen in those areas with 
children that have different needs. 

We've heard Mr. Hume speak strongly for core 
curriculum, but what about more pressing substantive issues like 
how can a student do core subjects if he or she is hungry? How 
can a student be assessed fairly if he or she has had a test 
administered inconsistently? How can a student be motivated to 
excel in core areas that don't highlight or recognize the 
contributions of leaders, scholars, and teachers of their 
cultural heritage, such as African-Americans, Hispanics, and 

And I think that those issues are some of the things 
that have not come out that are very substantive and very 
important in dealing with public education. 

I'm also concerned about the fact of the choice 


initiative in terms of the responsibility that the federal 
government and the state has to educate all children and not be 
subjected to special criteria for private schools, et cetera. 

I believe that public education should be 
representative of and represent all children, and I don't 
believe that what I've heard today entails a platform or a 
standard or proposes inclusivity, and I'm very concerned about 
those issues. 


Next, please. 

MR. THRASHER: Good day. My name is James Thrasher. 
I'm a resource specialist at Modesto High School in Modesto. 
I'm currently a Board of Director for the National Education 
Association and liaison for the State Board of Education, 
representing the California Teachers Association. 

As the liaison, I have been representing CTA for the 
State Board of Education since 1989. In that time, I have 
worked with four other liaisons to establish lines of 
communication to the State Board of Education on issues relevant 
to CTA and observed the Board proceedings . 

Today I am here representing CTA in strong opposition 
to the confirmation of Mr. Jerry Hume to the State Board of 

The background information on Mr. Hume indicates that 
he is on record as being 100 percent in favor of vouchers, as 
evidenced in his speaking before the Heritage Foundation on 
February 23rd, 1989. 

He has shown his support of the privatization of the 


public schools not only in his speaking to the Heritage 
Foundation, but also in his inviting of Mr. Mark Silzer, Vice 
President for Public School Partnerships with the Edison 
Project, and Mr. David Bennett, President of Education 
Alternatives, Incorporated, to speak to the State Board about 
their privatization efforts so far in the public schools. 

He distributed copies of selected portions of The 
Bell Curve, Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life to 
fellow Board members. He suggested that this publication 
presented ideas that, though controversial, would become part of 
the national debate in education, and as such were worthy of 
Board consideration. 

All of you are familiar with The Bell Curve . It 
essentially argues that IQ is largely genetic, and that low IQ 
means you can't success [sic] in society. They say because 
African-Americans generally score 10 to 15 points lower on IQ 
tests, they are predisposed to genetic inferiority. 

To me, this smacks of those discussions of Aryan 
superiority that dominated Germany prior to the emergence of the 
Final Solution of those Nazis. 

Clearly, such activities on the part of Mr. Hume 
demonstrate a lack of sensitivity that appointees to such a 
position demand, especially in a state as diverse as California. 

In conclusion, on behalf of the California Teachers 
Association, we wish to reiterate our strong opposition to the 
confirmation of Mr. Hume to such a prestigious position as the 
State Board of Education. Given the attitudes and beliefs 
displayed, Mr. Hume should not be entrusted to oversee public 


education in California. 


Anyone else who wishes to comment? 

Mr. Hume, you're invited to respond to anything 
you've heard if there are any points you'd wish to make. 

I guess I would want to ask one other thing. The 
Bell Curve treatise ends with a critique of affirmative action. 

Did you reach that conclusion yourself? What are 
your views about that current debate? 

MR. HUME: I think The Bell Curve , as I read it, 
indicated that — that affirmative action was being divisive in 
this society rather than cohesive, and that it hadn't really 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Those are the thoughts you would 

MR. HUME: So, I would say that where affirmative 
action worked, it's probably been beneficial. Where it's been 
harmful, I think it should be looked at. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Hard to argue with that comment. 

Another question? 


I wasn't going to ask any questions because I didn't 
get a chance to absorb and digest a lot of the material. I 
haven't read the book, you know, The Bell Curve , but the critics 
seem to say that its ultimate conclusion is there's no point 
wasting education on these people that are described in the 
minority section because it doesn't do any good, and for the, 
same reason affirmative action doesn't do any good. Give them 


the opportunity, but they don't learn. 

Which is very, very distasteful to me. I think that 
it's a good thing that the Speaker of the Assembly didn't know 
that, or that Senator Diane Watson didn't know that. While she 
was up here as a full-time Senator, she got a Ph.D. down at 
UCLA, which doesn't just hand them out. She worked very hard to 
obtain that advanced degree while, at the same time, fulfilling 
her duties up here as a Senator. 

So, if these critics are right, that it has a very 
pessimistic conclusion and says it's hopeless because of their 
genetic make-up, I find that shocking. 

Now, I'm not saying you agree with that, but, you 
know, if I had that report, I wouldn't circulate it. The stuff 
I circulate is usually what I agree with. I don't circulate 
things I disagree with. 

MR. HUME: You know, it seemed to me I was doing the 
Board a service in exposing them to that. I mean, I don't look 
at that as being detrimental . 

If something's on the New York Times Best Seller List 
and deals with the subject of intelligence, and it's being 
discussed all over the country, is the State Board not to be 
exposed to something like that? I mean, I think that's 

I'm not saying that any premises in The Bell Curve , 
one way or the other. I just provided them with an abridged 
summary that I received. I sent away and had it. I didn't have 
to, but I provided them with an abridged summary, and it seemed 
to me that it's something that they should be conversant with. 


Why shouldn't they be conversant with it? Why 
shouldn't they think about that? 

I can't understand this line of questioning. It 
seems to me very closed minded. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I agree, they should be conversant. 

But any member of a state board should stay in touch 
with the literature, and I would think every one of them would 
know about this without your kind and generous assistance in 
distributing the material. 

And I'm not saying you're advocating these things. 
You've said repeatedly that you didn't make any comment, pro or 
con, and I respect that. 

But going back to my objective approach to life as a 
State Senator, usually I find myself — and I'm not the only one 
-- when I want my colleagues to read something, it's usually 
because I'm very hot over this viewpoint, and I agree with it, 
and it's terrific. 

So, I guess that's a very narrow context in which to 
make the analogy. 

MR. HUME: Well, you really have to read The Bell 
Curve, which I did, from cover to cover to understand what it 
says . 

And the distortions that have been bandied around in 
the press about what The Bell Curve says are incredible. Don't 
believe what you read in the press about The Bell Curve until 
you read it yourself. You'll come forward with a completely 
different point of view. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, here's a direct quote from the 




"For many people, there's nothing 

they can learn that will repay the cost of 

the teaching. " 
I don't know who these many people are, but I assume it's the 
black people in our society. 

Well, that's what the whole book is about. It's 
about their inferiority and the bell curve and the learning 
curve . 

MR. HUME: Well, but actually, in The Bell Curve , 
there is one chapter that has to do with the difference among 
races . Everything else is on what are the impacts of 
intelligence; what happens to people at one end of the 
distribution curve; what happens to people at other ends of the 
distribution curve. 

They start out the book by saying, you know, we are 
becoming a divided society, and they bemoan the fact that we're 
becoming a divided society. They say all these people are going 
to the top universities, where there used to be the case in the 
past that people would be distributed through society in terms 
of intelligence. It's not happening now. It says they're 
getting concentrated in the elite institutions, and that's going 
to have profound impacts . 

Now, you know, you take a look at Berkeley. Berkeley 
didn't exist 100 years ago. People were scattered throughout 
the whole country. Now, people go to Berkeley; they marry; they 
intermarry. It's a different dynamic. 

Now that has to be looked upon as something that has 


happened to our society. What are the implications of it? I 
don't know, but to say it's not happening — 

SENATOR PETRIS: I don't say that. 

MR. HUME: But that's what The Bell Curve says, it is 

SENATOR PETRIS: I just wonder where these authors 
have been, because as one of the reviews points out, we've known 
this for many, many, many years. I knew this when I was in 
junior high school, and the teachers wondering which, if any, of 
the kids from my neighborhood would ever make to UC. I was the 
only one. 

So, I've known about differences, and it wasn't 
because my parents were wealthy. They were driven by a desire 
for education for their children, and they pushed real hard. 
It's part of their culture and tradition. I was lucky to be a 
member of that family. 

But it doesn't take a couple of scientists of this 
kind to point out to us that there's division. 

I take issue with what you said about affirmative 
action. It reminds me of an explanation I read at one time on 
what divides us. If there's a social critic that points out 
certain facts of life, as they're doing in this book, they're 
immediately branded as trying to divide us . 

It's like the guy who's crossing the river that I 
read about one time. And he comes upon this one fellow who's 
got the other fellow's head under water. He's trying to drown 
him. So, he tries to stop him. He says, "Hey, you can't do 
that. You know, that's terrible." And the guy says, "Get out 


of here. You're just trying to divide us." 

He was doing a pretty good job of dividing himself at 
the time, and I think the analogy is probably pretty good on 
some of our social issues. 

Anyway, I appreciate your comments. You're a 
fascinating, obviously highly educated person. I'd like to talk 
to you for a long time. I'm sorry I didn't make it, you know, 
when you came to the office. I'd like to learn more about some 
of the approaches that you take. I think a lot of them would be 
very helpful to our state. 

MR. HUME: Give me an opportunity. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess with respect to Bell 
Curve , the comment I wish to make is, I think it captures the 
half -informed. It's a very persuasive, interesting argument, 
and unless you know how selectively they picked things out of 
the academic literature, it can be disarming. I think it was 
designed to support and give comfort to those who flirt with 
racist doctrines in our society. 

There is a letter that Mr. Murray, who autographed 
and sent this book to you, sent to editors, in which he says 
that, that he thinks a lot of people who are afraid to speak out 
because they might be considered bigots will find comfort and 
support in the book. 

Now, it doesn't take a lot of sales, frankly, to be 
on the New York Times non-fiction Best Seller List. Just 
libraries subscribing is almost enough to get you to that 

But I guess my sense of what's going on with you, and 


it may be more intuitive than anything, is that you're an 

enormously bright, creative, interesting person, and a bit of an 

intellectual loose cannon, but I appreciate your commitment to 

kids and commitment to making schools. 

This is the Murray letter, by the way: 

"There are a huge number well- 
meaning whites who fear that they are 
closet racists. This book tells them 
they're not. It's going to make them feel 
better about things they already think but 
did not know how to say. " 
Now, the academic critiques of the book suggest that 

it's dishonest scholarship, that it's selected information about 

IQ tests, and Africa, and other places, in ways that make it 

dishonest scholarship. 

My own conclusion about the book is that the message 

they wanted to make was one which gives comfort to genetic 

theories and a critique of affirmative action. So, they started 

with a message. 

It might have been Isaiah that sold his birthright 

for a mess of pottage. These fellows sold theirs for a pot of 

message . 

MR. HUME: You know, what's interesting to me, and 

I'm delighted that we've had this discussion on The Bell Curve . 

You know, I think this is — I mean, I hope that the State Board 

has this discussion on The Bell Curve . 

Not to have a discussion like this is to leave 

unanswered some of the questions and feelings that people have, 


not only around this table, but on the State Board. 

Now, if I haven't done anything else but bring up 
that issue so it can be addressed, I've done a service to the 
State Board. And that's what I look upon myself as doing. 

Now, I may be criticized for doing that, but that's 
the way I am. And if I'm nominated, I'll continue to do stuff 
like that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I do not criticize for 
intellectual curiosity, for wanting to disseminate a wide 
variety of opinion. 

It does seem to be selective. 

MR. HUME: What do you expect? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And conservative. 

I haven't seen you bringing Angela Davis before the 
Board, or other things that might be criticized in a different 
manner . 

MR. HUME: But I'm probably the only person bringing 
people before the Board, and that's sort of sad. I mean, the 
Board ought to be exposed to as many different ideas. 

I don't have contacts with all those people there. 
There are people that say, you know, well, you ought to listen 
to this point of view. Of course, we do have a lot of people 
who come and give testimony on the Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I commit the same sin, or 
whatever, that Senator Petris pleads guilty to. I just 
distributed the lead story from Harper's Magazine , "Reactionary 
Chic", which essentially says the '90s rhetoric is a 
regurgitation of the '60s rhetoric of the left. I think it is, 


frankly. I'll give you my article, and we'll keep sharing 
articles . 

MR. HUME: All right, and I'll circulate it to the 
Board. How about that? 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That may or may not be a good 
idea . 

Anyhow, thank you for your frankness and directness. 

MR. HUME: I honestly tried to let you guys know me a 
little bit. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, you've done that, and these 
are very, very difficult judgments for us. We have some 
responsibility under a system of checks and balances to do that. 

I ■ m recommending to the Members today that we not go 
to a vote today. I think it would be wise for us all to take a 
brief time to just mull and think and interact some. 

Obviously, we know we have to act before the end of 
the month, and we will. But I think it would be constructive to 
take a little time. 

MR. HUME: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Mr. Hume. 

The next is Mr. Markarian. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you want to begin with any 
brief comment? 

ASSEMBLYMAN POOCHIGIAN: I'd like, if I may, Mr. 
Chairman, to introduce Mr. Markarian, if I may. 



ASSEMBLYMAN POOCHIGIAN: I'm Chuck Poochigian. I'm a 
Member of the Assembly. 

I'm delighted to speak to you, come before you today, 
Mr . Chairman and Members . 

I'm pleased to introduce Ron Markarian. I've known 
him for a very long time. I've come to know him in the Fresno 
community through his community service work at a whole number 
of levels, and I've marveled, frankly, over the years at the 
level to which he ' s been involved in community work at every 
level. Not only does he join a great many organizations, and 
you're well aware of that from the information before you, but 
also he's a very active participant. He's got a lot of energy 
and stamina, more than I, and he's a few years older than I am, 
and I'm impressed by that, by his dedication and hard work. 

He was born in Fresno, attended local schools, 
attended Cal . State University, Fresno. I think at the time it 
was called Fresno State College, where he earned a Bachelor's 
Degree in Education and went on to George Washington University 
in our nation's capitol to get his Master's Degree in Public 
Administration . 

He spent 30 years of his life in active service to 
our country as a member of the United States Air Force. He flew 
missions in Vietnam as a crew member. During the course of his 
service to his country, he served in numerous leadership roles. 

After discharge from the United States Air Force, 
with the rank of Colonel, he became very, very involved in 
community life, both nonmilitary and military community life, in 
Central California, and frankly, throughout the state and the 


country. Very active in the Chamber of Commerce, a number of 
veterans' organizations, a number of military organizations, and 
he's held leadership posts, including presidency, of a number of 
organizations and has been a national trustee of the Army 
Association of the United States, and has been very active in 
the American Legion as well. 

He ' s also been very involved in fraternal 
organizations, such as the Masonic Order. And as I mentioned, 
you have -- we don't have enough time today to go through all of 
his numerous accomplishments and organizational affiliations. 
You have that before you. 

Whenever I've need information about military or 
veterans' issues, I've turned to Ron Markarian. He is, as I've 
said, a very impressive man. I think that he has made and will 
continue to make a fine contribution to the causes associated 
with the Veterans Board and to the veterans of our state. 

It's my pleasure to call him a friend, and I urge you 
very strongly to seriously consider his appointment and confirm 
him into this important office. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Assemblyman. 

As an expert in appointments, your thoughts are 

ASSEMBLYMAN POOCHIGIAN: I must add, Mr. Chairman, 
that I had little, if anything, to do with this appointment. I 
therefore appreciate you not holding that against him. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good afternoon, sir. 

MR. MARKARIAN: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you want to begin with any 


MR. MARKARIAN: I have a comment or two, if I may, 
sir. And I'll thank you for the opportunity to address you on a 
couple of issues. 

Mr. Poochigian did a good job of summarizing my 
military career. 

When I retired from active military service, of 
course, I returned to my native land, California and Fresno, and 
made it a point to get involved in community and veterans ' 
affairs . 

As he indicated, I've served in chapter, state, 
regional and national offices with the Legion, the national 
sojourners, the Air Force Association, Army Association, and 
State Guard Association. I'm currently the Commander of the all 
volunteer State Military Reserve, and the part-time California 
State Director for the Selective Service System. 

I'm serving in my fifth and final, due to term 
limits, year as the West Coast Region President and National 
Trustee for the Association of the U.S. Army. 

I belong to the Vietnam Veterans, Am Vets, VFW. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They have term limits, too? 

MR. MARKARIAN: Oh, yes, they do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The organization? 

MR. MARKARIAN: Yes, they do. 



MR. MARKARIAN: DAV, and several other military and 
veterans' organizations, and I'm also active in fraternal 
organizations, currently serving as a board member for the 
California Scottish Rite Foundation, which operates 13 childhood 
language disorders clinics throughout our state. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Rules Committee, I 
think I have the background and experience to serve on the 
Veterans Board. I'm sensitive to veterans' issues, and I 
maintain close personal contact with veterans' organizations, 
and participate in their activities. 

I seek your support of my confirmation, and it would 
be my pleasure at this time to answer any specific questions 
that you might have. 


SENATOR AYALA: The Department of Health Services is 
now running the Veterans Home? 

MR. MARKARIAN: The Veterans Home is operated by the 
California Department of Veterans Affairs. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is the Department of Health Services 
equipped to run the Veterans Home? I don't know why the 
question was asked because — 

MR. MARKARIAN: I'm not sure why that was asked, 

I know health care services are provided at the 
Veterans Home, but I'm not sure that's the responsibility of the 
Department of Health Services . 

SENATOR AYALA: I guess that question is, why do we 
need a Department of Veterans Affairs, and then question is, is 


the Department of Health Services equipped to run the Veterans 

I don't understand that, but that was the question 
that was supposed to be asked of you. I don't understand that 

Do veterans run that Veterans Home and building 
another one in Barstow? 

MR. MARKARIAN: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: You only have two in California? 

MR. MARKARIAN: There is a second home in the process 
of construction. It's about 75 percent complete in Barstow. 
There's another projected for Chula Vista, a third at Lancaster, 
and a fourth site to be determined. 

Of course, that was in response to the veterans' home 
in Southern California. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is there one in San Diego? 

MR. MARKARIAN: Chula Vista. 

SENATOR AYALA: There's one in Chula Vista. 

MR. MARKARIAN: Yes, sir. 

Now, those are selected sites, those homes that have 
not started any construction. 

SENATOR AYALA: They've been selected, but there's 
none constructed? 

MR. MARKARIAN: That's correct. 

The only Southern California veterans ' facility that 
is in the process of construction is that one in Barstow. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you very much. 

MR. MARKARIAN: Yes, sir. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I have questions. 

Again, I didn't get a chance to read all this stuff, 
but I think some questions need to be asked because there's some 
considerable criticism that I think you should be given an 
opportunity to answer. 

Number one, it's alleged that under your command, the 
State Military Reserve considers itself out of the loop of the 
chain of command, and acting as kind of a loose cannon during 
state emergencies. Therefore, the Military Reserve doesn't have 
a good reputation with either the Office of Emergency Services 
or the National Guard. 

The allegation seems to be that your department just 
takes off on its own, without going through the Military 
Department of the state or the other two groups just named. 

MR. MARKARIAN: May I respond to that? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Let me just add to it a little more 
specific item. 

During the L.A. riots following the Rodney King 
verdict, and during the Oakland Fire, members of the Reserve 
mobilized themselves with your support. There was no request 
either from the Office of Emergency Services nor order from the 
National Guard. 

In your answer, would you cover that, too? 

MR. MARKARIAN: Yes, sir. 

I'd say in terms of my relationship as the Commander 
of the State Reserve and the State Reserve to the National 
Guard, it is very definitely part of the Military Department. 


And I, as the Commander, have a very close and continuing 
personal relationship with the Adjutant General, who is the 
Commanding General of the National Guard. I consult with him on 
almost a weekly basis. 

We're in the process of moving our headquarters from 
a remote location at Mather Air Force Base to the National Guard 
Headquarters . And when that is accomplished — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that here in Sacramento? 

MR. MARKARIAN: In Sacramento, yes, sir. 

That will ensure even closer coordination between our 
two organizations . 

SENATOR PETRIS: So, is this inaccurate? 

MR. MARKARIAN: In my view, I think it is, yes, sir. 

I think there are a number of critics of the State 
Military Reserve who have made some accusations that I'm not 
sure can be fully substantiated. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So, your contention is that during 
those two particular emergencies, you were in close coordination 
with — 

MR. MARKARIAN: In the instance of the Los Angeles 
riots , we had a representative in the National Guard Emergency 
Operation Center who coordinated the activation of State 
Military Reservists in support of the National Guard and other 
local jurisdictions, and those were all approved admissions. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Of course, maybe it's the other way 
around. As I recall, the National Guard was criticized severely 
for showing up kind of late in the L.A. riot situation, and 
maybe that spilled over on your group. 


MR. MARKARIAN: I don't know. I don't think I could 
comment on that, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Tell me what is the State Military- 
Reserve? Who belongs to it? 

MR. MARKARIAN: The State Military Reserve is part of 
the militia of the State of California, which consists of three 
elements: the Army and the Air National Guard, the State 
Military Reserve, and a Naval Militia, which is provided for in 
the law but is not operative at the present time. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How many people are in the Military- 

MR. MARKARIAN: There's about 700-plus members. It's 
comprised predominately of veterans of prior military service. 
I ' m a retiree. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are they in some kind of a military 

MR. MARKARIAN: Yes, sir. We are organized — 

SENATOR PETRIS: A company or a brigade headquarters? 

MR. MARKARIAN: We're organized into two geographical 
area commands, the Northern and Southern Command. And then, at 
brigade level, which is the next echelon below that, which is 
co-located with the Office of Emergency Service mutual aid 
regions throughout the state. That's who we set up the 
geographical boundaries for the State Reserve. And then 
further, at the community level our battalions exist. 

We have supporting the State Military Reserve Unit 
that I described a medical brigade located in Sacramento, with 
Northern and Southern California elements. 


And then we maintain the California Citizen Soldier 
Museum in Old Sacramento, which you're probably familiar with. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What kind of a budget do you have? 

MR. MARKARIAN: Right now we have none. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Did you ever have one? 

MR. MARKARIAN: We did have a budget several years 
back — 


MR. MARKARIAN: — that amounted at the maximum of 
about $300,000. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's why you're supporting the 
bill to get that $300,000? 

MR. MARKARIAN: I'd like to see that come back. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Apparently, you're in conflict with 
the Military Department on that. They don't support that bill; 
is that right? 

MR. MARKARIAN: Well, I don't — 

SENATOR PETRIS: They don't say whether it's right or 
wrong. I just want to know what's happening. 

MR. MARKARIAN: We discussed the bill initially, and 
I think the Adjutant General expressed to me his support of us 
receiving that funding, but of course, he didn't want that to 
come out of his budget because he was already under some very 
severe fiscal constraints. And I can appreciate that view. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, we have that problem all the 
time. We each guard our own bailiwick very zealously, and 
especially in times of recession — 

MR. MARKARIAN: Yes, sir. 


SENATOR PETRIS: — when we're all scrambling for the 
hard-to-get dollar. 

But at any rate, are you negotiating now on that to 
try to reach some agreement? 

MR. MARKARIAN: Yes, sir. Unfortunately, he's going 
to be out of town this week and next week, but when he returns 
from Washington, we'll get on it and try to resolve any issues. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Another part is on questions being 
raised about promotion of officers and the retiring of 
personnel. One point is that a number of high ranking officers 
in the Military Reserve, according to the Military Department, 
there are 50 Colonels for those 700 people that you told us, 
while in the Army National Guard there are only 42 Colonels 
covering a 20,000 person force. 

That seems to be out of balance. 

MR. MARKARIAN: Well, I can't speak to the accuracy 
of the 42 Colonels, but I would tell you this, that many of the 
people that come into the State Military Reserve are senior- 
officers. I was a retired Colonel. 

Obviously, it would be inappropriate, I think, to 
come in at a lesser rank; although some people have done that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are there any privates in the 
Military Reserve? 

MR. MARKARIAN: We have a couple. Bear in mind — 

SENATOR PETRIS: They serve the coffee at your 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. MARKARIAN: No, sir. 


Bear in mind that this is a cadre organization, and a 
cadre by its very nature consists of the top leadership upon 
which you would expand down to the ranks in the vent that you 
fleshed out the organization. 

SENATOR PETRIS: When I was in the Army, I thought it 
worked the other way. The first person in the cadre I ran into 
was in the Reception Center, who jumped on all of us civilians 
who were just coming in. We loved him so much we called him 
Corporal Buckcan. And he was the leading cadre representative, 
and I remember his with affection all these years. 

MR. MARKARIAN: Senator Petris, may I comment also, 
you made — you talked about the Colonels . 


MR. MARKARIAN: I might point out that a good number 
of those Colonels are in the Medical Corps that had been prior 
service Colonels in the active component. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that a part of the Emergency 

MR. MARKARIAN: The medical organization not only has 
the capability to support medical services, but we do other 
things as well. For example, we help conduct the physical 
examinations of Guardsmen, because they are short of medical 
personnel. We have a Medical Brigade currently in the Guard 
which is scheduled to phase out. Once that brigade is gone, 
that shortage will be even more severe. 

In addition, we have participated in several veteran 
stand downs , wherein we work with the veterans ■ organizations on 
assisting the homeless veterans. And as you know, they spend a 


period of time where they give them medical exams; they counsel 
them and try to get them back into the mainstream. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What do you consider to be your most 
important mission? Not you personally, but the Military 
Reserve? Is it emergencies, or what? 

MR. MARKARIAN: Well, I think certainly we have a big 
contribution that we can make to the emergency readiness of this 
state in terms of disaster planning, and preparedness, and 
exercising, and responding on a prearranged basis, because the 
local jurisdictions, as you well know, are very severely 
constrained on both manpower and financial resources to do — to 
prepare in those areas . And I think people with a background 
and experience in military planning and operations can make a 
very useful and meaningful contribution in that regard. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Has that resource been used in the 
numerous disasters we've had in California in the last couple of 

MR. MARKARIAN: It has been used on occasion, not to 
the extent that it offers a potential to be used in. I think 
that needs to be done . 

SENATOR PETRIS: How are you going to go about that? 
Do you have to appeal to the Military Department? 

MR. MARKARIAN: Well, we're — we're in discussion on 
that subject now. I think we're coming to an accommodation on 
those relative roles and missions. 

Obviously, the National Guard is not in the business 
of doing local emergency planning. We're a community-based 
organization that is quite capable of doing that. 


SENATOR PETRIS: Your department's ability to do that 
depends on how much of the $300,000 you're able to get in order 
to operate? 

MR. MARKARIAN: I think that would certainly enhance 
our capability to do that, but it wouldn't be an absolute 

SENATOR PETRIS: You mentioned the veterans. I think 
you said something about some of the veterans ' groups . Did you 
mention the American Legion? 

MR. MARKARIAN: I belong to the American Legion, and 
the Am Vets, and DAV, Vietnam Vets. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You named a bunch of them. 

Are your relations with them pretty good? 

MR. MARKARIAN: Well, I think so. I'm probably more 
active in the Vietnam Veterans and the American Legion, more 
specifically American Legion, than others. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You just got on the Board a few 
months ago? 

MR. MARKARIAN: Last March. I'm coming up on one 

SENATOR PETRIS: You weren't serving in the Board 
itself before that? 

MR. MARKARIAN: No, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We had a big problem with the Board 
in connection with the Cal . Vet insurance on their homes , the 
Cal . Vet Loan Program. 

During the big fire in Oakland, I have first-hand 
knowledge because I was one of the fire victims, and other 


victims, there are about seven or eight veterans who lost their 
homes in that fire. 

I was shocked and appalled — and I'm just saying 
this to alert you to some future — hopefully, we won't have any 

But, you know, traditionally, the viewpoint among 
some of us is, if you have an automobile accident or a fire in 
your home, the typical posture of the insurance company, the 
private company that covers your home, is they really resist 
your claim as much as they can and limit it, and try to find 
holes in it, and so forth. So, they have a bad reputation as 
far as serving the policy holder goes, individual company by 
individual company. 

But in that Oakland Fire, it was just the opposite. 
They not only immediately went to work to help the victims, but 
most of them paid out more than they were legally obligated to 
pay. A lot of them paid, for example, full replacement value, 
when it wasn't even in the policy, or the definition was subject 
to dispute. They resolved those in most cases in favor of the 
homeowner, except for the VA, which I thought should always set 
the example of how to treat the policy holder. 

The VA veterans just didn't get any kind of a break, 
any kind of good consideration from the Department, until 
legislation was enacted to compel them to do this, and this, and 

Finally, the current Director, who was a retired 
Admiral, current at that time, issued on his own a regulation 
requiring the State Department to provide full replacement value 


to these seven or eight veterans. It was a drop in the bucket 
against the very large amount that they had in reserve. 

I hope, if there's ever another disaster of this 
kind, that under your leadership, you're going to have your 
people get to it right away. It was very sad to see this 
happen . 

I had a lot of meetings with those veterans . They 
lived in my city, where I live, and we heard a lot of very sad 
stories. Well, a lot meaning seven or eight, because that's all 
there were . 

But every single claimant had the same experience, 
which suggests to me a lack of sensitivity on the part of the 
staff, who weren't trained as insurance people anyway. They 
were administrators and clerks, and they just didn't seem to 
know how to handle it . 

So, I would recommend to you that you review whatever 
the standing policy is now in preparation for something that, 
hopefully, you'll never have to use. 

Thank you. 

MR. MARKARIAN: Sir, may I comment? 


MR. MARKARIAN: I think the Department is blessed 
with a very dedicated and aggressive Director, soon to be 
Secretary, who puts the veterans first, and does everything he 
can to make that occur. And he's implemented some tremendously 
innovative and effective policies that is making that a reality. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What's his name? 

MR. MARKARIAN: Colonel Jay Vargas. 


SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, I've met with him early on. 
I'm aware of that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? What's the 
pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Motion by Senator Beverly. Call 
the roll, please. There is no opposition that I'm aware of. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. Senator 
Petris . 


SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Four to zero. 
SENATOR BEVERLY: Can we leave the roll open? 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, we'll hold the roll open for 
Senator Lewis . 

MR. MARKARIAN: Thank you very much. 
[Thereupon the final vote for 
confirmation was 5-0, as Senator 
Lewis ' s aye vote was added 
pursuant to Senate Rule 28.7] 
[Thereupon the Rules Committee 
acted upon legislative agenda 



items . ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Come on up, Mr. Thieriot . This is 
item number three, Richard Thieriot. 

Sorry you had such a long wait earlier. 

MR. THIERIOT: No, no. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Hopefully, it's interesting. 

MR. THIERIOT: Very educational, fascinating. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you want to begin with any 
kind of opening comment? 

MR. THIERIOT: I didn't have any statement prepared. 
I could go through some of the things I've been involved 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Would you just stay there and let 
me interrupt for just a moment. 

[Thereupon the Rules Committee 
acted upon legislative agenda 
items . ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sorry, Mr. Thieriot. 

We can begin by asking for comment and letting that 
occur first while you consider any statements you might want to 
make, if you wish, if there are supporters or opponents present. 
We could start that way, and let them comment. 

MR. THIERIOT: If comments are helpful, I can make 
some quickly. 


MR. THIERIOT: The principle areas in which I've been 
involved in wildlife and environmental concerns and 
environmental protection are that I was the founder of a 


15-20,000 acre wildlife complex up near Chico, California. It 
was on a piece of ground that had been an old, old family ranch, 
going back over a century. 

We did a project where we bought out the other family 
members, and in conjunction with both federal and state agencies 
and some private environmental agencies, created this very large 
wildlife complex. 

It was sort of interesting in that it was a little 
bit unprecedented and that it was — we were able to put 
together all these different agencies, with private landowners, 
and as I say, federal, and state, and public organizations. And 
we ' d hoped that it would be something of a model for other 
projects of its kind. 

I was also Chairman of a thing called Farm and 
Wetlands, which was an organization, again, to set aside 
wildland and wetlands many years go when it was sort of a novel 
thing to do it. We were hoping to do it on a private property 
basis. That if we could do it on a profit making basis, then 
things like this would start out and sustain themselves. 

And we thought we were pretty clever. It was early 
'80s. We had caught that cycle where ag. values were dropping, 
and we thought that if we could buy ag. land fairly cheaply, 
convert it, return it to nature, improve it in terms of the 
wildlife and waterfowl usage, we could then resell it as duck 
clubs or places people would want to have in the country. 

And concept, I think, or at least I hope it was 
pretty good. But we were too early, because we only got the 
beginning of the cycle. It kept falling after — after we 


purchased the land. So, it became something where we just 
couldn't make a go of it. 

But the Nature Conservancy came in. They had funded 
us at the beginning, and they picked it up, and they have turned 
it now into what has become known as the Cosumnes Wetlands . 
It's been very successful, or at least pretty successful. 

Beyond those specific projects that I've been 
involved with, I'm a trustee of the California Academy of 
Sciences. I'm on the advisory board of the local Audubon 
organization and of the national Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a 
member and supporter of Nature Conservancy, California 
Waterfowl, Sierra Club, Legal Defense Fund, Rain Forest Action 
Network, Resource Renewal Institute, and some others. 

That's just a quick summary. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Senator Kopp, did you want to introduce — 

SENATOR KOPP: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for 
abandoning Mr. Thieriot — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: He hasn't been abandoned. 

SENATOR KOPP: — by not being present. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We've adopted him in your absence. 
We're going to leave you Hume and keep Thieriot. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR KOPP: I remember, Mr. Chairman, for the 
record, about two years ago, and Senator Ayala will remember, 
with one of his characteristically controversial bills about 
building a dam. 



SENATOR KOPP: And it was Mr. Thieriot who suggested 
it would be imprudent to do so unless water was guaranteed for 
wildlife and waterfowl, which I think is emblematic of his true 
commitment . 

For the record, I've known Mr. Thieriot approximately 
2 years, and I want the record to reflect that his reputation 
in our community is of the highest order in terms of his 
honesty, and in terms of his conduct. 

No matter what you may hear to the contrary, he is a 
fastidious person and a scrupulous person. And I would have no 
question whatsoever, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 
about his fidelity to law, to regulation, and to the American 
process of government. 

And I can assure you that he will be respectful to 
his fellow Californians of all stripe and of all status as a 
continuing member of the Fish and Game Commission. He is that 
kind of a person, and I urge you to recommend his confirmation 
to the State Senate. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Senator. 

Since we have another Senator present, would you wish 
to comment now, Senator Hayden? 


Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Thieriot and I were just engaged in a civil 
conversation in my office, trying to get to the bottom of some 
of these issues when the appointment came up. So, perhaps we 
can clarify the issues here. 


I'm here more or less as a neutral with great 
concerns in two areas. Primarily concern is, Members of the 
Committee, that the administration seems to be turning the Fish 
and Game Department into more of a permitting agency for 
landowners and others , developers , who are opposed to the 
Endangered Species Act, which it is supposed to be an agency 
that protects wildlife, and fish and wildlife across the state. 

For example, the top Warden of the Year, Mr. Bishop 
from Butte County, whom I just spoke to, testified under oath at 
a hearing of the Natural Resources Committee just two weeks ago 
that political pressure on the administration was causing the 
Department not to enforce the law. This was repeated in an 
editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle on Sunday. 

Immediately in the wake of the hearing, for whatever 
reason, the head of the Department, Boyd Gibbons, was summarily 
removed without any clear explanation. 

The issues in that Department require tremendous 
oversight and a recommitment to the enforcement of our fish and 
wildlife laws . 

This occasion might be an opportunity for you to 
question the fact that the administration has openly declared 
that it seeks to get around the Legislature, around the Senate, 
and accomplish by administrative order what it fears it might 
not be able to accomplish legislatively. There are drafts upon 
drafts of documents I can share with you that show that the 
administration's attorney, Mr. Manson, intends to seek to weaken 
the environmental laws in general, and the Endangered Species 
Act by getting around them. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is his first name Charles? 


With respect to Mr. Thieriot, the same Mr. Bishop, 
the same warden who's Warden of the Year, filed in October, 
1993, 193 citations -- 193 counts of violations of wildlife 
codes having to do with the improper possession of deer, duck, 
and other species in a freezer on the ranch that is owned by 
Mr. Thieriot ' s corporation, the Parrot Ranch Corporation. 

I don't think the framework of the issue is whether 
there were those 19 3 violations of the law. To me, the 
framework is, is Fish and Game going to enforce the law or not. 

However, with respect to the 193 violations, what we 
were just getting into was the statement by Mr. Thieriot that 
basically, this matter is over. As he says, "I assume that the 
Butte County D.A. must have substantially agreed with us, 
because we never heard from him again and charges were never 
filed. " 

My understanding, and I want Stephanie Rubin, who is 
my legal counsel on this issue, has been in touch with Mr. 
MacKenzie, who's the D.A. in Butte County, to corroborate this 
statement, that these charges are alive, that they're in 
settlement discussions with the corporation, and that Mr. 
MacKenzie says, "We're not going after them criminally," and he 
said he was concerned that if his name came into this matter for 
not going after them criminally, environmentalists would be 

We're past the time that they can be gone after 
criminally, anyway. 


Then I talked to Mr. Bishop just a few moments ago. 
He says they have a good relationship with the D.A. in that 
county. And he, too, was told by Mr. MacKenzie that they were 
going to go after the principals at the ranch and have them make 
a civil restitution instead of a criminal one, so that the 
criminal charges would be dropped, because often times, people 
want to pay a fine rather than have a criminal record. 

So, I can't tell whether this is important enough to 
put this matter over for an hour, but there's a total disparity 
between the statement of Mr. Thieriot — that this is dissolved 
and the matter was never moved forward, charges were never 
filed, he must have substantially agreed with us — versus the 
statement of the D.A. in question, who says he's in the midst of 
civil settlement, finding them guilty of the 193 violations, and 
having them do restitution. 

So, there's a large question of enforcement, but 
there is also a dangling question here about the disposition of 
this particular case. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't know what we can learn, if 
there were a way to learn. 

Can you comment on all — 

SENATOR HAYDEN: We were just in the middle — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — the 193 violations; what you 
know about the D.A.'s current activities or plans? 

MR. THIERIOT: I think, first of all, Senator, I'm 
not sure it was 193 violations. I don't know if that's the way 
to say it. 

I had written up a description of what we believe 


happened and handed it out. And I think Senator Hayden has one, 
too . 


MR. THIERIOT: Specifically, relative to the point 
Senator Hayden raises, our attorney talked to this district 
attorney two or three times by phone. And after that, the 
district attorney never called us back. And that was nine or 
ten months ago now, and no charges were filed. 

And I'm not a lawyer. I'm not sure what the law is, 
but my understanding was that if you don't file them within a 
year of the offense -- 

SENATOR HAYDEN: Criminal; if you don't file criminal 
charges . 

MR. THIERIOT: — that then it's — it means the 
charges have been dropped. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When did it happen? 

SENATOR HAYDEN: October, '93. We're the one year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Okay, we're way past the year. 

So the question, I guess, is whether there might be 
some civil matter contemplated. 

Have they mentioned that at all? 

MR. THIERIOT: That was part of the conversations. 



SENATOR HAYDEN: If I might just introduce Stephanie 
Rubin, who's an attorney, who's been in touch with the Butte 
County D.A. I just want in her words what she — 



MS. RUBIN: I spoke to Rob MacKenzie, Butte County 
D.A. last Wednesday or Thursday. And what he explained to me 
was that criminal charges were not filed, but that they were in 
the midst of settlement discussion, the amount of which 
obviously he could not disclose. And he sent me this Fish and 
Game report for our review. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Thieriot, do you know of any 
civil settlement discussions involving anyone in your 

MR. THIERIOT: Yes. Our attorney had talked to them 
about a civil settlement because, when the wardens came and took 
the game, they listed as the offender the Parrot Ranch, and the 
Ranch manager, a fellow named Jim Burris . And he really had 
nothing to do with the game, and he was very concerned that it 
would be unfair look bad if his name got out as being associated 
with this. 

And it was on that basis that we told our attorney to 
go ahead and do a settlement to get Mr. Burris ' s name — to 
protect Mr. Burris, if it were possible. 

But it wasn't to do with the charges, which, to the 
best of my knowledge, weren't — I don't think any illegality 
was done. As far as we know, as far as we've been told, all 
those birds were properly tagged. 

The issue has to do, I think, not with having taken 
game wrong, or shot it improperly, or having shot too many. It 
was with whether or not they were properly tagged, the birds, 
the duck and the pheasant and the quail, and stored properly. 

When you store game, you have to have it properly 


tagged. And I think that's what the charge ended up being, that 
we hadn't properly tagged them. 

And I wasn't there, so I can't say I absolutely know 
for sure, but our Ranch manager was there, and he helped the 
wardens actually load the game into the warden's truck. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Whose game was it? 

MR. THIERIOT: It was four limits of quail had been 
shot by myself and three sons the prior season. Then there were 
about 20 limits of duck, which had been shot by three or four 
family members and their guests, again legally and within the 
limits and all that. And there were also geese and pheasant 
which had been shot by other family members . 

And there, too, my understanding was that they had, 
in fact, all been properly tagged. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: That's correct. 

Mr. Bishop, the warden, also among the 193 counts, 
cited violations of Section 3081, which provides that only a 
legal limit may be possessed after the season, even if it is 
tagged, which means that there was a number of deer over the 
legal limit, in addition to the issue of whether they were 
tagged properly. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean there wasn't hunting in 
excess of the limit, but freezing? They were only freezing 

SENATOR HAYDEN: Only a legal limit may be possessed 
after the season, whether it's tagged properly or not. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, when the season ends, there 
were some animals — 


MR. THIERIOT: During the season, you can possess two 
limits. During a season, you can hunt one limit on any given 
day, but you can have two in possession on any given day, 
including the limit you shot the day before, theoretically. 

After — ten days after the end of the season, the 
rules change. And then in possession, you can only have one 
limit. You can no longer have two. 

So, I assume that's what is meant but I don't know. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Were you aware — 

MR. THIERIOT: But deer, but the reference to deer 
really, I think, had nothing to do with — I know it had nothing 
to do with me. I don't think it had anything to do with any of 
the family. I think maybe some of the fellows on the Ranch had 
hunted deer . That ' s the way it works . 

But again, I don't think there were deer over limit. 
I don't think — that were taken over the limit. And I don't 
know about this possession. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have some 
interest in this matter of the violations, but wanted to really 
raise the question about the Fish and Game philosophy, because 
I'm prepared to believe Senator Kopp in a minute, or Huey 
Johnson, or Judge Newsome, or others who are here that this 
gentleman cares about the environment. 

I only linger on this because in the last day, we've 
got the statement from Mr. Thieriot that either his statement 
falls short of the full story, or the D.A. up there, because the 
D.A. says, hey, we're still in talks with these people; we're 
going to put civil penalties in; they're going to agree to that. 


He said something, as I mentioned, about criminal penalties. 

And then, on the other hand, this gentleman says he 
knows nothing of it, and he's been talking to his attorney. 

So, I think we ought to at least settle whether the 
violations occurred. We've acknowledged that the violations of 
the law have occurred, and whether a civil settlement is 
pending. In which case, it's not — certainly not dispositive, 
but it ' s fact to be taken into account for a member of the Fish 
and Game Commission. 

I just don't know what the truth is now. I thought 
this would be an easier matter to settle, but either the D.A. is 
correct, or Mr. Thieriot is correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I missed your comment. It sounded 
like you said you were aware of some discussions that were — 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — in mid progress. 

MR. THIERIOT: They had come up, to my knowledge, in 
one or two telephone conversations. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is more recent? 

SENATOR HAYDEN: Ten months ago. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is still back several months? 

MR. THIERIOT: The latest of which was ten months 
ago, and we never heard back from them after that. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: Was it possible that they could be 
talking to your attorneys last Wednesday? 

MR. THIERIOT: No, not possible. 


MR. THIERIOT: I mean, I think it's a fair point to 


raise, but obviously because — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you have any knowledge of a 
violation with respect to the keeping of the game? 

MR. THIERIOT: No, none at all. And as of now, I 
don't necessarily agree with the Senator. I'm not accepting 
that there was a violation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But you certainly had no — well, 
it sounds like you had no intent to violate the law or 
regulation. Is that an accurate statement? 

MR. THIERIOT: Absolutely. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Maybe before we go to a vote on 
the Floor, we'll get additional information on that. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: That might be the fairest way. 


SENATOR AYALA: I was just going to indicate that the 
information given to us as of today indicates that no charges 
were filed against Mr. Thieriot, and that it's been over a year. 

Is that true as I just indicated, that it's been over 
a year that the charge would have been charged, but they're 
never been charged, according to the information we have, never 
filed against the gentleman here. 

MR. THIERIOT: It's been ten months since any 
conversation, and it's been a year and a half since — 

SENATOR AYALA: But you're not aware of any charges 
they filed against you? 


SENATOR HAYDEN: But that information, obviously, is 
not accurate, Senator, because why would the D.A. this week say, 


"We're finding them in violation and imposing a civil 
settlement " ? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I would suggest because somebody- 
asked. That's my suggestion about why you got that comment. 

We're going to about environmental philosophy. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: I'm very concerned about 
nonenforcement, and I hope that Mr. Thieriot will assure us that 
he would be, if appointed, independent of the Governor, a 
believer in the enforcement of Fish and Game laws, and do 
something about the mess at the Department. 

I mean, when the top Warden of the Year says that 
he's talked to all the other wardens, and he's willing to go on 
record, under oath, saying that we're being told not to enforce 
the law, and then the Director jumps up and say, "What do you 
mean by that? And then, a few days later, the Director is 
removed by the Governor, I don't know what's going on. 

But I think that the pattern suggests that if the 
Senate doesn't do oversight of what's going on at Fish and Game, 
you're allowing potentially a usurpation of executive authority. 
And I'd say that whether it was a Democratic Governor or 
Republican Governor. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's clear to me that we have an 
executive officer who is very selective about obeying the law. 
I've seen it in numerous contexts, and it's, I think, a personal 
defect that probably disqualified the gentleman from the 

SENATOR HAYDEN: I wouldn't go that far. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I would when' it gets to be a 


public issue, which it will. 

And I've seen the pattern again and again and again, 
where this Governor is very selective about enforcing or 
ignoring laws that he doesn't agree with. 

Now, let's find out if that has anything whatsoever 
to do with this gentleman. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: It's just a question of whether this 
gentleman — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Has the backbone — 

SENATOR HAYDEN: — having been appointed by the 
Governor, is willing to — 


SENATOR HAYDEN: — express his independence. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm tentatively convinced he is, 
but I'd like to hear him comment on these matters. 

Have you heard sort of suggestion that there ' s 
perhaps undue political influences at work within the 

MR. THIERIOT: I'm not sure I've heard it within the 
Department. I mean — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm not asking you to agree or 
disagree with any of the prior statements, simply what you've 
seen, if anything. 

MR. THIERIOT: I've certainly criticisms from both 
sides of the spectrum on all the issues that have come up, 
including does the Governor's Office try to exert too much 
control over the Commission and the Department. I mean, you 
hear opinions on both sides of that. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you felt not pushed? 

MR. THIERIOT: It's not really an issue or problem 
for me. 

By way of example, in seven Commission meetings that 
I've attended, the only two times endangered species legislation 
questions came up, both of my votes were more aggressive 
environmental ones . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That was when you had a listing 

MR. THIERIOT: Yes, there were two listing questions, 
one for a thing called a Southern Seap Salamander, and another 
for the infamous Gnat Catcher in Southern California. And in 
both those, I say I voted more proactively environmentally. 

I think I understand Senator Hayden ' s point of view. 
And I know that many, many people have those concerns. 

I'm surprised. I don't really feel that the 
Department is that weak or that bad, or that the wardens are 
that up in arms. That would really be news to me, and I really 
don't believe it's correct. 

I think that there was a lot of conversation critical 
of Boyd Gibbons, the last Director. I think that was very 
unfortunate. I don't think it was right. I think he was a 
tremendous visionary, a very able guy. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Why is he gone? 

MR. THIERIOT: Well, I think, you know, there are a 
lot of issues on which the Governor's Office felt that he could 
have acted differently. And I'm sure on many of those issues, 
probably they were right, because I think the Governor's quite 


an able person, and I think he's actually more able and has done 
more in the environmental area than he is given credit for. 

So, I think they're both able people. I think it's 
just been unfortunate that Boyd Gibbons hasn't continued, 
because I think he's been a good fellow. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was there any particular criticism 
of him that comes to mind? 

MR. THIERIOT: Well, it's truly dependent on your 
point of view on whose ox was getting gored. 


MR. THIERIOT: The environmentalists felt he wasn't 
supporting the environment enough. The hunters felt, like the 
bear and hound hunters, an infamous situation — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, I remember that. 

MR. THIERIOT: — felt he wasn't aggressive enough in 
support of hunters . 

The private property side of the issue, developers, 
farmers, and so forth, felt he wasn't protective enough of their 
interests . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was a specific criticism in 
that area, private property? 

MR. THIERIOT: If I could just finish the thought. 


MR. THIERIOT: What I feel happens, and you all know 
it better than I, often in government the Fish and Game 
Department is truly a microcosm of, and that is, you have 
obviously these different special interest for whom their own 
interests far outweigh the broader common interests . 


And what happens in a case like that is, people end 
up seeing the trees for the forest, and environmental groups, 
for example, may say, well, gee, he let us down on points one, 
two and three. And that's stayed in their craw, and they 
remember that, and they overlook the fact that he was their 
defender on points four through fifteen. And that just seems to 
happen a lot. 

Boyd Gibbons ' s predecessor, a man named Pete 
Bontadelli, also took a lot of heat in that position. Again, I 
think he was a good and an able man. And he did a lot of good; 
particularly, where he did a lot of good was, he was very 
aggressive in using whatever funds he was able to come up with 
to buy and protect key land for the state. And he did more of 
that than any of his predecessors. 

And I think this whole issue of wildlife and 
environment in many ways comes down to that issue: how much 
land can be protected in some fashion, easements being purchased 
by the state, being purchased by the Nature Conservancy. And I 
think under Bontadelli, the state probably led all other states 
in the country for being proactively that way, which I think is 
very important . 

Boyd Gibbons ' s strength was , he was a tremendous 
visionary. He was — he looked out and was able to see all 
sides of the picture. He wrote a book called Why Island , and it 
was a book about an island, I forget where in the east, but that 
again was a microcosm of all these problems: that developers 
wanted to move there; environmentalists wanted to protect it; 
hunters and fishermen wanted to use it. And all these forces 



came crashing together when real estate values reached a certain 
point. And he wrote this book; it was a short book, but it was 
really an interesting book. And by the end of that, you didn't 
know whose side he was on. 

And one rarely sees that, and I feel that's a key 
element for somebody in Boyd's position. You're always trying 
to advance the ball in terms of what is known and what is true. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's been the most difficult 
issue that you've had while you were a Commissioner? 

MR. THIERIOT: Probably Endangered Species 
Act-related legislation. 


MR. THIERIOT: The listing type things. And that's 
an important area, and an area I know that Senator Hayden is 
interested in, and rightly so. 

And an issue as you all know at least as well, 
probably better than I, it really is coming to a fore in this 
Gnat Catcher area in the southern counties . And I think that 
the issue may be simpler than it seems, in that especially with 
the growth of population in the state, I think the will of the 
majority is to protect the natural resources, to protect what 
wildness is left in California. And the Endangered Species Act 
is the first thing that's had the teeth to really do that. 

At the same time, after a couple of decades of the 
Endangered Species Act being used as a hammer to achieve these 
ends, now the will of the majority has shifted a little bit, I 
think. Now the will of the majority is saying, "Well, pur 
wildness is starting to be protected, but we feel this hammer 


falls unfairly." This is my reading; this is my sense. That 
wildland that needs to be protected, must be protected, but when 
it comes to taking away people's private property, there should 
be some form of compensation. 

This in itself has become a controversial issue, as 
you all know, daily in the newspapers these days. And I think 
there are lots of great complexities about how a compensation 
concept would be carried out. 

And I don't feel I know the fine points that well, 
but to me, it's not all that different from eminent domain used 
when they want to put a highway through your property. If they 
need it, if it's in the public good, then it's got to be done. 
But if they take away, you know, take away something of value, 
then — of substantial value for the public good, then I think 
the public has to make the private sector whole. 

Anyway, my thought is that I would hope that both 
sides are moving towards that a little bit, the private property 
side, the environmental side, because if something could be 
worked out that way, it would get past all this tremendously 
gridlocking difficulty that we're facing now over the use of the 
Endangered Species Act, which, after all, has — has angered so 
many people now, and so people have felt it's unfair, that you 
see happening at the federal level what is happening, wherein a 
number of Representatives and Senators are now looking for 
legislation that many would feel is going too far the other way. 
It's creating a backlash. 

I really think this is a key area where there's got 
to be a bridge found and built between the competing interests . 



SENATOR LEWIS: You brought up the Gnat Catcher. 

Did you vote to list it? Is that what I heard you 

MR. THIERIOT: That wasn't the issue this time. The 
issue was, over how many months — how many months does the 
Department have to come up with a recommendation to either put 
it on the list for study, not for listing but for study. How 
many months do they have. And the issue was, is it a six-month 
process or a three-month process. 

The reason that's at issue is, there are so many 
competing concerns down there relative to that, that many people 
feel that it has to be — it should be put off and not addressed 
quite so quickly. 

The problem is that the way the law reads is, there 
isn't that much flexibility in the timing that one has to list. 

SENATOR LEWIS: What was the other one you mentioned? 
Was it some sort of salamander? What was the deal on that? 

MR. THIERIOT: That was taking it up for study as to 
whether or not it should listed. 

And when it first came up, I was brand-new on the 
Commission, and I hadn't been exposed to these things up close 
that much before. And at the first hearing it came up, I felt 
that the environmentalists had not made a sufficient case to 
call for listing, the plaintiffs or whatever they're called. 
And had sort of argued against considering it for listing. 

After that meeting, though, I spent a lot of time 
trying to educate myself, less as to the biology which I would 


never learn about, but at least as to the law. And I felt that 
left less room for flexibility than I had thought was there. 

SENATOR LEWIS: What was the name of this salamander? 

MR. THIERIOT: Southern Seap Salamander. 

SENATOR LEWIS: And where does this lovely critter 

MR. THIERIOT: North part of the state. 

SENATOR LEWIS: So the Southern was in the Northern. 

How many different salamanders are there in 

MR. THIERIOT: Questions like that I really don't 
know, Senator. 

SENATOR LEWIS: God bless them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: One is the Speaker of the House. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm looking at the names of the 
other members, but the list doesn't give their occupations. 

Are there any biologists, or marine biologists, or 
other scientists on there, appointed members? 

MR. THIERIOT: No, I don't think there are any 
biologists per se. There is a Frank Boren, who is head of the 
Nature Conservancy. There's a Gus Owen who's a businessman. 
There is a fellow named McGeoghegan who is a farmer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And a vacancy. 

MR. THIERIOT: And we have a vacancy. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, the reason for the question 
is, some of the objections, we've had in the mail said where ' s 



your scientists? You used to have scientists; now you don't 
have any. I thought we still did. 

A hunter can't possibly be concerned for carrying out 
the protection part of the mission. It's a very delicate 
balance. You have a conflicting mission there. One is to 
supporting hunting, and the other is to support the animals. 
It's kind of a broad, over simplification, but I imagine at 
times it ' s a little difficult to reach a balance there. 

MR. THIERIOT: I don't think that's ever been 
difficult, Senator. 

I think that the opposition comes from different 
point of view. Just quickly, my sense is — others could 
disagree, I'm sure — but that the hunting community has 
educated itself tremendously over the last couple of decades. 
And it realizes that in order for what it loves to do to 
continue, it has to, more aggressive than anyone else, protect 
the species. And so, that's why there's been so much money put 
into things like Ducks Unlimited, and so forth. 

So in terms of protecting species, I do think hunters 
and fishermen are more avid protectors of species than 
nonhunters . 

I think where the concern comes from, where the 
letters of opposition to me have come from, are more animal 
rights groups than environmental groups . 

SENATOR PETRIS: They don't want any hunting at all. 

MR. THIERIOT: And they don't like hunting. And I 
can understand that. 

I do think — and I think some of them will probably 


speak today. 

At the Commission meetings that I've been present so 
far, there has been one or two people who have spoken from an 
animal rights point of view. And the issues they bring up are 
issues that I'm completely in agreement with and so would most 
Commissioners be. They're usually not hunting issues. They're 
issues along the line of, for example, there's a fallow deer 
industry. You can grow deer and then sell the meat. 

Well, the animal rights groups are interested in 
those deer being cared for as properly as possible while they 
are held and raised. And then, when they are killed, that they 
be killed in the most humane possible ways. 

Things like that, I think all the Commissioners would 
be supportive of. 

SENATOR PETRIS: They do that for veal, small sheep. 
You know, the veal issue was very big here a few years ago. I 
think there's general support for that. 

Thank you. 

MR. THIERIOT: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'd point out also that if the 
desirable balance is between hunters and those sensitive to 
issues of habitat protection, you've basically put your money 
where you mouth is with respect to habitat protection by the 
conveyance of that huge acreage to the Conservancy. And that, 
perhaps, speaks more profoundly than the normal rhetoric or 
comment we get. 

I compliment you for your far-sightedness. 

MR. THIERIOT: Thank you. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You complimented Mr. Gibbons for 
being a visionary. I think you and your family have been as 
well . 

I'm sure there is testimony. If there's anyone who 
wishes to comment, first in support? 

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman and Members, my name is 
Huey Johnson. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It looks like you have your duck 
tie on today? 

MR. JOHNSON: These are peace symbols, cranes. And I 
would mention the crane, I suppose, is a international peace. 
The birds fly from one nation to another, and whether from the 
Soviet Union in those years, to India where they struggled for 
years to save themselves, and we also have them in California. 

I was formerly here as the Resource Secretary, and 
have gone through this process and think it is a very healthy 
and important one. And I commend you for doing it well. 

In this case, cranes became a symbol for me while I 
was living here because we have 30 miles in Sacramento at 
winter, really had no place to winter because their landscape 
had been used for other purposes . And a group of us — I once 
worked for the Nature Conservancy a number of years ago — we 
decided it would be worth trying to provide a permanent place 
for them, because in summer, they go to Alaska and Siberia to 
nest. And I approached several people, including Richard 
Thieriot and said, gee, can you give us some help. 

It was his way of describing the group, that area 
that is now the Nature Conservancy preserve, some 3,000 acres 


down there that provides as permanent heritage wintering place 
for these birds that, hopefully, our great-grandchildren will 
come and enjoy. 

I speak as a President of the Aldo Leopold Society. 
Leopold is a contemporary of Thoreau. His famous book is Sand 
County Almanac , and he spoke of the importance of — he was a 
first ecologist. He was a professor, first one of wildlife 
biology in the United States at the University of Wisconsin. 
And he rather invented the word and put it in practical, 
meaningful terms, and suggested the importance of managing 
things land how we should do it. 

He was a very poetic person, very sensitive. He's 
easily the number one hero of America's environmentalists today, 
including preservationists. He was a hunter, and he was a 
fisherman, and he was a very, very sensitive person in doing 

And he fully thought out his actions, and he fully 
worked very hard as a habitat preservationist and as a 
scientist. And the popularity of the man long after his death 
seems to increase each year. His books increase in sales; 
they're now very prominent internationally. 

I asked again, Mr. Thieriot, if he — as we sat in a 
duck blind on several occasions, talking about things that were 
environmental — if he would consider helping start an Aldo 
Leopold Society for the purpose of furthering the ideas and 
works of that gentleman. And he generously did so, and we've 
got some other people, and that society is progressing. 

And it would take a middle-of-the-road position that 


would not buy the idea that we should oppose all hunting. We 
believe it would be nice to have the opportunity to be in 
nature, be a choice of future generations and permanence. It 
may include hunting. I spend more time as a preservationist 
than I do hunting, but I do hunt, and I do fish, and I do bird 
watch, and I do a lot of other things. 

But in any event, that society, I believe, will go 
on, and I can thank him and others like him who are sensitive, 
middle-of-the-road folk, who are able to work with, I think, 
preservationists . 

The idea of animal suffering isn't something I like, 
et cetera, nor do I like the idea that there should be no rules, 
and we hunt things from pickup trucks, and what have you. 

So, ours would be an attempt to be a poetic 
middle-of-the-road position, and he was generous in lending his 
name and financial support in starting the idea. 

So, I think he will make an excellent Commissioner if 
you choose to appoint him. 


Other comments? 

MR. JOHNSON: May I say one more thing? I promised 
Senator Hayden I would do one thing. 

I agree somewhat with him, that the critical issue of 
managing the integrity of the environment of California hinges 
to a great extent with the Fish and Game Department. And I feel 
pressures are on, and it's awfully important that you practice 
oversight, and I know you will. But we all watch and hope from 


Thank you. 

MR. SIKES: Mr. Chairman, Senators, my name is Walt 
Sikes. I'm the Executive Director of the California Waterfowl 
Association . 

I'll tell you a little bit about our organization. 
Our mission is the protection and enhancement of California's 
waterfowl and wetlands. We've been in existence for 50 years 
now, and consist of 11,000 active members throughout California. 

I've known Mr. Thieriot for several years, and he's 
been a strong supporter of our organization for many of those 
years that I have known him. He has given both financially and 
with his own time to many of our programs. 

He is one of the key founders of our local breeding 
waterfowl program, designed to return local waterfowl 
populations to its historic levels. 

Mr. Thieriot, on his own, has also brought together 
several government and private organizations to improve wildlife 
areas in the Central Valley. I think that Mr. Thieriot 
epitomizes the word "steward of the land." 

I have worked with Mr. Thieriot as acting 
Commissioner since his appointment last year and found him to be 
enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and dedicated to doing what was 
right, not only for outdoor enthusiasts, but also for our 
wildlife resources. 

Our organization strongly supports Mr. Thieriot ' s 
appointment, and I urge this Committee recommend confirmation of 
his appointment as Fish and Game Commissioner. 

Thank you. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Other comments? 

MS. HANDLEY: I'm Virginia Handley with the Fund for 

Animals . 

I think I'm probably one of the few people in the 
state that actually go to the Fish and Game Commission meetings. 
I'm kind of a camp follower. It's my one way for a 
mini-vacation in my job. 

I just came from their hearing in Ukiah in which they 
announced there is an upcoming hearing on the Gnat Catcher. So, 
that issue certainly has not been resolved. 

I was very disturbed by the information that Senator 
Hayden gave; these 193 violations is very disconcerting. And 
the fact that Mr. Thieriot is a hunter, maybe a duck hunter 
particularly, does that bring about a conflict of interest? 

He mentioned all the associations that he's a member 
of. He did not mention Ducks Unlimited. I would say the ducks 
that are unlimited are the ones in his freezer. 

We're disturbed, too, by Boyd Gibbons being gone, 
too. I might also add that Vern Garren is also gone, who was 
the lobbyist who also really was a bridge between different 
factions . We ' re very sorry to see him go . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And the Leg. Counsel from the 
Attorney General's Office has been replaced, so there's been a 
purge in that place that ' s best compared to something that 
happened in Eastern Europe 30 years ago. 

MS. HANDLEY: We are, of course, in support of all of 
Mr. Thieriot 's work with the wetlands. Of course now, being a 


duck hunter, he has a certain interest in all of those ducks. 

People like to give the impression that the animals 
rights, that we're a little far out in being concerned about the 
individual animals. While in fact, the Commission is prescribed 
by law that they are to consider the welfare of individual 
animals. This was put in when Charley Fullerton was the 
Director, and I helped to put that in because we were concerned 
at the time that the Commission was giving a permit to a 
gentleman to cut off the antlers of elk in velvet, which was 
very painful. And they said at the time, well, we don't have 
any requirement to consider individual animal welfare. 

So, they did put that in there then. And this has 
shown up in the environmental impact statements, where they do 
have excellent chapters where they really explore the welfare of 
individual animals, that animal's ability to feel pain, and that 
pain includes stress. 

The different wounding — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you seen actions of 
Mr. Thieriot as a Commissioner that worry you? 

MS. HANDLEY: There's only one instance when we talk 
about the welfare of individual animals, and we brought up the 
subject of deer farming. 

The Department actually asked the Commission to not 
have any deer farming, and the Commission decided that they did 
want to have some deer farming of fallow deer. 

I don't recall whether you were on the Commission at 
the time that they did vote to have deer farming in California. 
That was something we were not in agreement with right there. 


But Mr. Thieriot gave a disturbing sentence of saying 
that he thinks that the wildlife in captivity should go to the 
Department of Food and Ag., and that is something which we are 
very much opposed to. We think the Department is opposed to, 
too, and we're fighting legislation this year to put deer farms 
into the Department of Agriculture. We think they should remain 
with the Department of Fish and Game, and that Fish and Game 
really feels a lot more responsibility, is a lot more dedicated 
to that. 

There being really so few meetings of which he ' s had 
to vote on the Endangered Species things, I couldn't comment on 

The hunting regulations for this year have not yet 
been voted on. I think that'll be in Alturas . I can't say now 
that — one is to consider the welfare of individual animals, I 
don't know how that allows him to vote for clubbing animals to 
death in traps; having them ripped apart by dogs, or being 
wounded with bows and arrows . 

They do put some excellent observations in the 
environmental impact statement . The problem is , they don ' t seem 
to really seriously consider them. We hope that Mr. Thieriot 

That vote has not yet come up. 

Thank you. 


Additional comment? 

All right, questions from Members of the Committee? 
Are you prepared to act on this matter? 


SENATOR BEVERLY: I'm prepared to make a motion. 
Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, we have a motion by 
Senator Beverly. 

Any discussion? Let's call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. Senator 
Petris . 


SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'll hold the roll open so other 
Members may record. 

[Thereupon the final vote for 
confirmation was 5-0, as Senators 
Ayala ' s and Lewis ' s aye votes were 
added pursuant to Senate Rule 28.7] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck. We wish you well. 

We will try to understand more clearly this business 
about the Butte County District Attorney. Be aware, it's a 
broke county. They're very broke, so they may be trying to 
balance the budget. 

But your sensitivity to all the various complex tasks 
before the Commission is, I think, apparent, and your 


thoughtfulness in trying to bridge the various points of view is 
very infectious. Good luck. 

MR. THIERIOT: Thank you very much, Senators. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
5:45 P.M. ] 

— 00O00 — 


I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

jj IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 

/ ?* 

this / O day of March, 1995. 



Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $6.25 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 273-R when ordering.